View Full Version : An open source "Next Gen" AR Upper?
We have been kicking around an idea for an open source AR upper. Here's the premise:
We make the design available through prints and 3D model files (Solidworks). It would be free for anyone to view and/or modify.
Any interested persons could make some or all of the parts and sell them, give them away, whatever.
This design would have basically all of the features of the "Next Gen" guns, like possibility of folding stock, changeable barrels, side charging handle (non recip), etc...
Let's hear your thoughts.
Justin
*To clarify, by "we" I do not mean Magpul, I mean my company which does bolt gun stuff.
We have been kicking around an idea for an open source AR upper. Here's the premise:
We make the design available through prints and 3D model files (Solidworks). It would be free for anyone to view and/or modify.
Any interested persons could make some or all of the parts and sell them, give them away, whatever.
This design would have basically all of the features of the "Next Gen" guns, like possibility of folding stock, changeable barrels, side charging handle (non recip), etc...
Let's hear your thoughts.
Justin
*To clarify, by "we" I do not mean Magpul, I mean my company which does bolt gun stuff.
Call me what ever, but what's the difference? I mean what makes a "next generation" upper? I honestly don't know.
It would be very interesting to see what the end result would be as far as design and function. With so many "cooks in the kitchen" I wonder if function would suffer.
I have no experience with any weapons design, but I assume the biggest problem would be either making new parts or integrating existing parts.
This seems like a cool idea either way.
"Next Gen" rifles typically have these traits:
-Folding stock capable
-Better charging handle location than AR (non reciprocating)
-User can swap barrel fairly easily
-As many ambi features as possible
-extended 12 o'clock rail with other mounting positions
-adjustable gas block
-typically piston operated
-designed specifically for piston op (rails, anti-tilt feature, etc...)
-enhanced ejection to deal with carrier speed variations
-stronger extractor and/or extractor spring
-improved bolt design
-firing pin block
-coatings/finishes that greatly reduce component wear
-etc
This is not an exhaustive list and many of these are subjective. All of them are currently featured on presently available rifles. Not much has been new in firearms for quite some time, (even caseless ammo is an old idea). The combination of these features are what set apart the ACR and SCAR in some respects.
Shred, you have a point in that if the design was modifiable it may result in just a mess. Maybe just release .pdf's of the prints? Kind of like the AR print package that is floating around?
I'm always impressed to see the ingenuity of guy who make stuff in their garage, or maybe have access to a mill or lathe at work. I bet we could see some neat stuff. We'll see what the interest level is.
We are definitely interested in fostering the "next generation" of weapons designers, as outside of say Picatinny there's no real central place to learn weapons design (specifically small arms/sporting arms).
Justin
The thought crossed my mind a while back too.
It's just about the only way that a collection of small companies could do some real innovating and move the needle on a next gen PLATFORM without being limited by the (financial) requirement to produce parts that are backwards compatible with the AR platform.
Use the power of social collaboration that the .net provides.
It could work. It could be a disaster.
Would probably have to be some kind of "technical consortium" like they do across the pond. (...scary...)
I'll play.
The hard part is going to be settling on what components are common items.
I really liked the Masada concept that an off the shelf AR15 barrel could be used, and used the AR18 operating system with steel bearing rails.
I really do think that some bastard child of the Colt CM901 and Masada lower (modular up front for caliber with swap of upper; self-contained trigger pack, vertical ambi bolt catch, modular stock/end cap attachment) could become the revised standard, and this would be vastly preferable to the myriad of non interoperable platforms right now, but there isn't even a common material being selected for this role.
Usually the point of Open Source is based upon the premise of free exchange and mutual improvement.
The free market has handled this pretty well with current AR manufacturers. Very few have access to a CNC machine or anything else. Personally, it would cost me far more to try and do something like that vs just buy a BCM or even a Noveske upper.
We thought it would be beneficial to keep the AR lower for several reasons:
-it's the serialized part, the gun
-It basically halves the cost of production and R&D
-It works and is common
Regarding calling up BCM or Noveske, sure you could do that, guys that like 1911's can buy one off the shelf too, or build their own. There is definitely a benefit to just having a rifle that everyone in the US owns in triplicate. But sometimes it's good to have chocolate or even mocha. Further, an AR is a perfectly good platform, I've carried it (M4) in combat, but it does lack some features that newer rifles have incorporated.
Justin
We thought it would be beneficial to keep the AR lower for several reasons:
-it's the serialized part, the gun
-It basically halves the cost of production and R&D
-It works and is common
Justin
That's a good thought to keep the cost lower, except that none of the new guns use an AR lower.
That's probably because it is too limiting to include a folding stock, ambi features and increased bolt carrier travel.
Very true. However, an actual open source rifle, the whole thing, would be more difficult because either one company would have to offer the serialized part, and thus carry firearm manufacturers insurance, or every single end user would have to do some finish work (ala the 80% AR lower) to be able to use his rifle.
Would it help if I mentioned that the design is already done, and that it fullfills many of the "next gen" features and does fit on an AR lower? So I guess it's not really so much an open source collaboration design project, as it is an open source design improvement/parts manufacturing project.
Justin
CaptainDooley
05-19-11, 00:23
I personally would have nothing to add to the design, but would love to see what the community could come up with. I'd also love to help on the testing side of things too. :D
Would it help if I mentioned that the design is already done, and that it fullfills many of the "next gen" features and does fit on an AR lower? So I guess it's not really so much an open source collaboration design project, as it is an open source design improvement/parts manufacturing project.
Justin
^^^Small detail;)
Send the model.
Magic_Salad0892
05-19-11, 03:00
Would it help if I mentioned that the design is already done, and that it fullfills many of the "next gen" features and does fit on an AR lower? So I guess it's not really so much an open source collaboration design project, as it is an open source design improvement/parts manufacturing project.
Justin
Can you release a pdf. or something?
Also, does it have an ambi bolt release/catch?
I'm more interested in a "next gen" AR lower than I am an upper.
SomeOtherGuy
05-19-11, 11:40
Would it help if I mentioned that the design is already done, and that it fullfills many of the "next gen" features and does fit on an AR lower? So I guess it's not really so much an open source collaboration design project, as it is an open source design improvement/parts manufacturing project.
Justin
Uh, yeah, that would help a lot!
I really like this idea. My biggest hesitation is that things will be marketed as conforming to the "open source" design but start accumulating small differences in dimensions that result in incompatibility, whether blatant or just resulting in poor fit or unreliable operation. Perhaps you could create a design license that requires certain critical dimensions to be held tight to the design or else the product can't be marketed as being part of your design. For this purpose you would probably want to obtain intellectual property protection of both the design (possibly as a design patent, or if appropriate a function patent) and of some marketing name for it that will be widely used (trademark).
PrivateCitizen
05-19-11, 12:04
Would it help if I mentioned that the design is already done, and that it fullfills many of the "next gen" features and does fit on an AR lower? So I guess it's not really so much an open source collaboration design project, as it is an open source design improvement/parts manufacturing project.
Justin
The upper is pretty much the key … I think you are going in the right direction. Without details it is difficult to see how some of what you say differs from things like an MRP, etc
Lowers are actually going through their own bit of evolution … Next Gen Arms X7, new Noveske, billet, etc … so letting that do it's thing and have this follow along makes much sense. Not to mention the probable backward compatibility with existing lowers.
That is definitely a concern to have the parts made to spec and not end up with a bunch of parts that don't fit. It may be too difficult. It's hard to say, that's why we're trying to get you guys' input.
I'll post some pics later tonight or in the AM.
Justin
SomeOtherGuy
05-20-11, 08:40
If the complete specs are open source, anyone can inspect a product to see if it really matches up to spec, and report places like here when significant deviations are found. As long as the adopters aren't all the bottom-scraping machine shops it's probably not a big issue.
It would probably help a lot if you could get a really high quality manufacturer to be one of the first adopters. I'm sure each reader has their own short list but mine would include Noveske, BCM, DD, LMT, and Mega. Get things off to a really good start, then let the competition begin. And that competition is a lot more likely to happen without restrictive licensing arrangements and fees.
Yeah we could release a pdf and anyone could check specs of parts.
The bolt catch would be dependent on what bolt catch your AR lower had.
This design is:
-long stroke piston with a non-AR bolt/carrier design
-steel rails for the carrier
-steel trunion
-headspaces like a Mauser (easy to cut barrels, don't need a barrel extension for every barrel)
-you can swap the barrels with an allen wrench
-etc.
If there's enough support/interest in the project, we'll release what we have. It's not 100% but is pretty close. Here's a couple pics:
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g201/Justinmd/Untitled-1.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g201/Justinmd/Untitled-2.jpg
gunrunnerusmc03
05-20-11, 12:42
I'd be really interested. I work in a machine shop and do lots of design for resto-mod cars parts etc (ringbrothers). This would be great way to help contribute ideas and work on weaponry design.
I have some contacts that might be interested. A few have the finacials to take it a step up, but maybe to risk adverse to act.
I'm a fan of the development model, but not sure on some aspects such as the insurance portion. I think I'd like to see it based off the ADEX lower.
If you like shoot me a note and I'll run it by them.
I'd be down for something like that.
Dumb question: what about, "community sourcing" the funding to develop this? Something like how Kickstarter does it, but with guns.
(For reference: http://www.kickstarter.com/)
While getting hundreds/thousands of dollars per person would be difficult, getting, say, $10 per person, but a LOT of people would make the project easier to swallow.
Also, the "open source"/"Crowd Sourced" design has been used to some success in another, large model. Local Motors has taken this approach to building cars. I'm sure we could make it work with guns, especially given the design work already put in.
(Ref: http://www.local-motors.com/)
-Adam
SomeOtherGuy
05-20-11, 15:52
I like the design and the concept, and would like to support it. I'll be watching to see if anything to support more directly comes up.
It sounds like most or all of the design work is already done. From that point, I see it mostly as a matter of getting one or more competent manufacturers (since it's an upper they don't need to be an FFL-holding manufacturer, but they do need to be competent) to tool up and start building. This doesn't look like a home workshop item unless you're an engineer/machinist with at least a CNC mill.
But I repeat, I would like to support this and will be watching. Seems like one approach would be a campaign to contact selected quality manufacturers and ask them to start making these.
Magic_Salad0892
05-20-11, 17:27
Has a prototype been developed yet?
Also, if you want to PM me I have a few other questions.
Cagemonkey
05-20-11, 18:11
I like the concept. A true piston upper designed to mate with a AR/M16 lower with no carrier tilt and increased recoil impulse. I always thought a modified AR18 type upper or a modified Robinson Arms XCR upper would be a good starting point. How far out are you from production? Would you use Mil Spec like materials and criteria?
Again, without a modernized, ambi lower to put it on, what is the point?
Adam S, that Local Motors link was awesome. I had never heard of that! It's a really neat idea, I hope they can build the company. It seems like an AR upper would be far simpler to do in such a manner than a full car! As far as us, we've sort of got other irons in the fire with our bolt gun stuff. We've had this design for quite some time now but it just keeps getting pushed back and I don't see it being a top priority for us anytime soon unfortunately.
Some other guy, yeah there's only a few parts a guy could build without a good mill, but it was designed to be efficient to produce. Maybe the shooter could do a parts build like an AR, not doing any machining.
We have some prototype parts but we're pretty busy with other stuff and we thought this might be a cool experiment.
Materials are pretty standard firearm stuff, 6061 Alum extrusion, 4340 and/or 17-4 SS for some breech parts, 4140 for other steel parts, some tool steel, etc. Finishes are mostly salt bath nitride for steel and hard ano for Al. So yeah that's about top of the line right now without getting exotic. If we had to start using crazy alloys then maybe the design needs changed.
Again, without a modernized, ambi lower to put it on, what is the point?
I dont find the AR 15 lower to be glaringly deficient.
Sure it could be improved slightly, but that could be a separate project.
For consumers, everybody already has one ( six ) lowers, so trying out a new upper is less risk/cost than a whole new rifle.
I would gladly add a proper piston upper to the stable, and it's easier to finance than a SCAR.
Originally we wanted to make it for 600 dollars ish, but that's very difficult to hit with US made and all machined (due to lower quantities). If someone made 50k of these then maybe it could be done using mass production methods like MIM, casting, forging, etc.
I dont find the AR 15 lower to be glaringly deficient.
Sure it could be improved slightly, but that could be a separate project.
For consumers, everybody already has one ( six ) lowers, so trying out a new upper is less risk/cost than a whole new rifle.
I would gladly add a proper piston upper to the stable, and it's easier to finance than a SCAR.
I think the manual of arms for the AR platform is glaringly deficient and to correct it requires "fixing" the lower, the only part of the AR platform that hasn't really been addressed till late in terms of modernization (there are supposedly some ambi lowers about to hit the street). Me, once my hand is on fire control, it shouldn't have to leave for anything. There are few rifles out there that can accomplish that. It will also more than likely be a requirement for whatever service rifle specification that comes down the pike so I think now is the time to address the issue. Judging by Magpul's last success with getting a modular rifle into shooter's hands I don't really see this project coming in at a price point lower than the SCAR unless there are some great strides forward made in the use of polymers here.
I think the manual of arms for the AR platform is glaringly deficient and to correct it requires "fixing" the lower, the only part of the AR platform that hasn't really been addressed till late in terms of modernization (there are supposedly some ambi lowers about to hit the street). Me, once my hand is on fire control, it shouldn't have to leave for anything.
Ok, lay it out there.
What do you think is broke and how do you think it should be fixed?
This may need a separate thread.
Ok, lay it out there.
What do you think is broke and how do you think it should be fixed?
This may need a separate thread.
What is broke? That damn bolt catch/release that requires removing your hand from the fire control, that is what is broken. It is an easy fix. Make a lower with ambi mag release, ambi safety lever, ambi bolt catch/release. I want my hand to never need to leave fire control. If the wonder-upper has a ambi/reversable non-reciprocating charging handle; bonus.
Concerning this Massoud upper-
The Mauser has locking lugs that engage the receiver. This has two disadvantages the AR barrel extension eliminates.
1) The barrel extension is the true receiver as it contains the pressures and stresses of firing.None of the stresses are contained by the upper receiver. The Massoud upper receiver would have to be beefed up and made of steel, or at least a steel insert sleeved to a beefed up upper with a resulting increase of weight.
2) Each time a Mauser barrel or bolt is changed, the headspace has to be checked and usually has to be adjusted by either re-timing the barrel, cutting the chamber deeper or lapping the bolt to the receiver. None of this is required with the AR barrel extension because the design allows the manufacturer to not only hold everything in tolerance but keep the processes in control as well. While the Mauser design can be held to tolerance, control is in the hand fitting of the parts. Interchangeability of parts without hand fitting required is lost.
Using an op-rod system places the reciprocating mass above the centerline of the bore, giving it greater leverage to induce muzzle rise. It may not be a big thing in itself, but it's not an improvement over AR recoil management.
What we have, is a heavier upper with with fewer parts interchangeability than the AR and a higher center of gravity from an over the bore op-rod and a taller profile, none of which are improvements over the current generation AR upper
Fellas, let's move the "lower deficiencies" to another thread so this does not devolve off topic. I've explained why a whole new lower is not desirable in this case. Also, Magpul has nothing to do with this project, as I stated previously.
We are looking for honest opinions. If anyone feels there is no need for another AR upper option or is against doing an open source project for some reason, feel free to state your case. However I am failing to see why this would not be a win-win and a cool endeavor.
If the benchmark for pricing is a SCAR (2k+), I would be surprised if a machine shop or combination thereof couldn't beat that mark handily given a basically free TDP.
Mistwolf, you have some good points which have been dealt with, outside of your knowledge since you don't know the design particulars.
1. I mentioned a steel trunion, this houses the lug abutments and handles the stress of firing. The upper receiver is made of Aluminum. This is basically the setup of both the ACR and SCAR. (The SCAR "barrel extension" is a trunion that bolts into the aluminum upper reciever). The ACR has a steel trunion in addition to using AR barrel extensions. Further, this upper could be configured to use a barrel extension type of setup, and then theoretically the trunion could be made of 7075.
2. Anytime you change any bolt or barrel you should check the headspace. At any rate, a skilled gunsmith once told me that he rarely saw an AR that would headspace correctly if you just had a collection of components (not like a full rifle built by whoever). One of the benefits of the Mauser style system, which is used by Accuracy International, is that you can cut barrels very efficiently. This is why it was developed by Mauser. You can, for example, order an AI barrel and the gunsmith can cut it without having your rifle in his hands. A gunsmith merely cuts the chamber to the correct depth and ships you a barrel. Headspacing off of an inner collar is the easiest way I am aware of for cutting barrels. In fact Badger Ordnance uses this method on their M2008 action as well. Parts interchangeability is actually increased. The only real advantage an AR has here is that the assembler can trust the barrel provider to have set the headspace correctly and hope that his bolt is in spec. Also there is some weight savings because you have a little less steel. What do you do if you order an AR barrel and either it or your bolt are out of spec slightly?
3. Weight savings, this would probably be a toss up but I don't have exact numbers. With this upper, you ditch your AR buffer and I believe the carrier weighs less because it is way shorter, but you have a steel trunion and the piston assembly. 6 of 1 on the weight.
4. A piston inducing muzzle rise, I'm not sure where you got that. Perhaps in theory it could because of a small amount above bore weight as you mentioned, but maybe the downward force applied to the barrel by the piston would offset that. Do you have any data, high speed vid, or any evidence of this occuring in other piston guns? I know the piston Sig 556 rifle I shot was one of the sweetest shooting rifles I've handled.
Let me just clear one thing up so people don't think I'm attacking the AR. The AR is not shit. Its inline operation was a great idea. It has advantages. The system has disadvantages. Until we get plasma rifles, nothing is really going to just make the AR (or any other semi modern rifle) obsolete.
SomeOtherGuy
05-20-11, 22:21
Some other guy, yeah there's only a few parts a guy could build without a good mill, but it was designed to be efficient to produce. Maybe the shooter could do a parts build like an AR, not doing any machining.
I'm not in any way disappointed with this requiring advanced machining, I was simply noting who the real target audience was - at the least better machine shops, and really true manufacturers with engineering staff are a far better fit. Obviously M4c has a significant representation from this group, but this upper isn't something I see being built on a hobby level, other than buying a complete/partly complete upper and attaching it to their lower.
SomeOtherGuy
05-20-11, 22:28
Originally we wanted to make it for 600 dollars ish, but that's very difficult to hit with US made and all machined (due to lower quantities). If someone made 50k of these then maybe it could be done using mass production methods like MIM, casting, forging, etc.
I think the open-source "TDP" you issue could have separate levels of compliance, such as:
-basic design - almost just concept of operation
-key dimensions that make it compatible with an AR lower (it's fairly useless without this, of course)
-additional key dimensions that would allow interchangeable parts within the upper between brands/makes
-material and strength specifications
-testing specifications
-probably others that wouldn't be obvious to me
If it were divided up this way, a manufacturer could advertise which portions of the TDP they complied with. They could do a top quality build that complied with everything, or a plinker build that met only the first three, and had cost saving measures elsewhere. They could indicate compliance with all except for specified deviations - maybe they used certain MIM parts while you spec'd forged or barstock, or they did a plain 4140 barrel instead of a CMV, or nitride instead of chrome, etc. This is effectively where I see the AR market being, except that apart from the efforts of people on this site, you can't really determine what parts of the TDP that any company other than Colt is complying with. Your open source could bring that out into the open for this design.
This would be terrific at $600, but I think it could be commercially viable at up to about $1000, considering what a high quality DI upper with a rail setup costs.
Some other guy, you are correct I think as far as targeting actual machine shops and manufacturers and such. There is still room for input from the AR enthusiast community here and room for guys to do design work. I looked at that Local Motors site and they would have mini design competitions for things like a hood scoop or graphics package.
I do like the idea of different levels of TDP compliance, especially for things like barrels (chrome vs nitride vs bare metal) etc. This is the kind of ideas we were hoping to generate. Keep those wheels spinning.
An open source TDP would have one big advantage for pricing, basically it would have low overhead (I'm including design/R&D costs here). In fact it would have such an advantage that care would have to be taken not to run the current AR piston upper companies into the ground or seriously hurt their sales. They have to pay their bills and employ a number of Americans, and the more companies around=more competition=better designs.
Justin
SomeOtherGuy
05-20-11, 23:23
An open source TDP would have one big advantage for pricing, basically it would have low overhead (I'm including design/R&D costs here). In fact it would have such an advantage that care would have to be taken not to run the current AR piston upper companies into the ground or seriously hurt their sales. They have to pay their bills and employ a number of Americans, and the more companies around=more competition=better designs.
Justin
Not to state the obvious, but another big advantage of an open source TDP is that a really good machine shop without any design engineers could still build a good product just by carefully following the TDP. I expect the broader manufacturing companies would still do better, but who knows. And a shop doesn't necessarily need to build complete uppers - they could build just one or two parts, carefully to the entire TDP for those parts, and provide a useful service. Compare if someone today were building nothing but AR bolts, but building them to the design and quality level of LMT or KAC bolts, without infringing anyone's IP.
As for existing piston upper companies, I see three options for them:
1) build this new design side by side with their existing design and see what sells better
2) convert to just the new design if they determine it's better or more profitable
3) sell their existing design and explain why and how it's better than the open source design.
Win for consumers. Win for good, adaptable businesses, whether or not their existing design is better or inferior. I'm not going to cry if some company has an inferior design and refuses to consider a replacement that has already been engineered for them, or was dependent on an excessively high profit margin to survive with their proprietary design.
As we've seen various firearms makers liquidate or get bought up, the value of standardized designs becomes apparent for future spare parts and accessories. As an example, I think Robinson Arms has some good designs, but I know if they go out of business there will likely be no spare parts, and that's a consideration for a product I might hope to own and use for 40+ years.
As you develop this, I think there will need to be some sort of process for determining, approving, and "mandating" as part of the standard clarifications, increased details, and outright changes in the open source TDP. I'm sure that once production starts there will be features that either aren't ideal, or can be improved a worthwhile amount, or were not even thought of but become important to the design. It would be good if there were an organized way for version 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 etc. to be implemented and standardized so that improvements could be made and cataloged. You might even want to include in the open source license some provision that certain types of improvements had to be made available to all without separate licensing - primarily any improvements that would take over the design and turn it into a proprietary design that got a cheap start if they were able to be protected from use by others - while also allowing other categories of improvements to be protected and not require any free licensing. This could get legally complicated and I expect you'll want to consult with IP lawyers both experienced in software (where open source is fairly well known) and separately experienced in mechanical design, where this is a fairly new idea.
I'm sure someone will say "kill all the lawyers" etc., but if you release this completely free and then one company comes up with, and patents, a single improvement that has a dramatic effect, or is even just plain necessary for the basic design to work, all of sudden that company effectively owns this design that you created, and the intent of an open source approach could be killed early in the development. I see parallels with the GNU software license, although it's somewhat at the extreme end and not necessarily what you want to copy, although I think it would be worth looking at for ideas.
The advantage of the AR barrel extension design is that there is little variance between barrel assemblies and bolts. If your gunsmith is telling you he has seen few ARs built from components that didn't need head spacing, as in needing adjustment, his experience runs counter to most of those on this forum who work on ARs for a living. Many on this forum will tell you it's very rare for the head space to be off when using a new drop in bolt with a new barrel assembly.
When you mention the Mauser type design, I'm thinking original Mauser 98 bolt action. That action doesn't use a collar.
I'm not certain I'd want to trade a barrel extension for a trunnion in the receiver.I know what a pain it can be dealing with the trunnion as used on the HK roller lock action.
As for the reciprocating mass being above the bore line adding to muzzle rise, that's easy to figure out using simple physics. The further from the bore line the reciprocating mass is, the more leverage it has. It's a principle modern arms designers have been aware of for many years
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g201/Justinmd/Untitled-1.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g201/Justinmd/Untitled-2.jpg
It appears to me that these drawings were done in SolidWorks. If that is the case would you consider making an E-drawing file of the assembly available for closer review of the design?
ETA: Or maybe post a cross section view. Through the vertical axis down the centerline of the bore.
EDUB
If we decide to release it open source we will but for now I would rather just discuss the concept itself of doing an open source upper. I didn't mean for this to become a design review, as part of being open source means that the design could be modified and improved by anyone with a good idea and some design skill.
Mistwolf,
Regardless of what one or another gunsmith says, a part has to be kept to spec, whether in an AR or otherwise. An out of spec AR is useless just like any other design. Regarding the inner collar, it was introduced in 1895 and was used, according to Stuart Otteson in his book "The Bolt Action," on the M98. He discusses this on both pages 7 and 10, describing in more detail the benefits of such a setup on page 10. Maybe he is wrong, I've not worked on any Mausers, but his book is considered a pretty definitive source. Regardless of if it's used on the 98 or not, it's used to great success on several designs and I think it is a great addition as a feature. The thing about open source is that you could take the design, tweak it to us AR barrel extensions, and advocate your version. Incidentally I am aware of many of the laws of physics but I am more concerned with actual performance than theoretical slight disturbances in moments of inertia. Again, I have experienced, nor have I ever heard of anyone noticing an increase of muzzle rise because the cg of the bolt carrier was slightly above the bore. I would like to be enlightened, however, if this is the case because I consider myself a student of firearms design.
Someotherguy, again good points you bring up. I hadn't thought of other piston companies just being able to adopt the design and sell it over their own design or alongside their own design. It would only make sense. Then those companies could work on enhancements which would give their version an advantage, be it coatings or otherwise. Although I believe you are correct at that point they could perhaps file a design patent on their version. Perhaps this is what a Creative Commons License is used for? (Mentioned by the owner of Local Motors).
The more I think about it, the more I like their (Local Motors) approach to some degree. Have one guy or entity have control of the project, proposed changes go through him/it and are finalized by voting by members. Data files are issued out with the agreement not to patent any changes. This guy/entity would need compensation, but there wouldn't be a need to have a full business built around it with little factories like Local Motors. To help fund the startup, maybe have a 10 dollar buy in to be a voting member and acess the data package, or put it on that funding website that was mentioned (same post as Local Motors link)?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what is being defined as the collar
SomeOtherGuy
05-21-11, 09:52
Perhaps this is what a Creative Commons License is used for? (Mentioned by the owner of Local Motors).
The more I think about it, the more I like their (Local Motors) approach to some degree. Have one guy or entity have control of the project, proposed changes go through him/it and are finalized by voting by members. Data files are issued out with the agreement not to patent any changes. This guy/entity would need compensation, but there wouldn't be a need to have a full business built around it with little factories like Local Motors. To help fund the startup, maybe have a 10 dollar buy in to be a voting member and acess the data package, or put it on that funding website that was mentioned (same post as Local Motors link)?
Let me preface the comments below saying I'm not familiar with the Creative Commons License and I will need to look it up. I'm also only marginally familiar with the GNU license. I'm a lawyer but not an IP lawyer and, of course, you will need to eventually engage a lawyer who is an IP specialist, if you haven't already done so. Maybe such a person could step forward as part of the project (vs. the usual hourly rates).
Thinking about this overnight, I think it might make sense if you don't publish the entire TDP free of charge, but instead make the TDP available to parties who enter into a license agreement with you that stipulates various terms, including restrictions on how they can market this (mostly that there are penalties if they market something as complying with parts A, B, C of your TDP when they know it actually doesn't) but perhaps as importantly, restrictions on what they can patent OR requirements that they allow the TDP creator/holder entity to obtain such patents itself, to become part of the "open source" arrangement, OR allowing them to patent any improvements they want, but being obligated to provide a free license of those improvements to other TDP licensees if the improvement is of a type that's deemed essential or integral to the design.
Some companies (think publicly traded defense contractors) probably wouldn't agree to that, and that's fine. They don't play. I expect a decent number of privately held companies would see the wisdom and benefit to all from this approach.
I hope I'm not boring people posting all this IP-licensing stuff in the open thread, but I think it's very relevant and will affect the success of this effort. Anything you think should be discussed privately just send me a PM.
SomeOtherGuy
05-21-11, 10:00
Although I believe you are correct at that point they could perhaps file a design patent on their version.
Repeating that I'm not an IP lawyer, I believe there are separate categories of patents: design and functional. Functional patents are what we normally think of as patents and should represent true inventions or innovation. Design patents, as I understand them, are simply a specific shape/dimension or other implementation of a concept, and represent only a protection of that exact implementation, not the basic functional concept. I believe Ruger has a design patent on their scope ring half-moon cuts, for example, while most other firearm patents would be functional patents.
Where I'm going with this is that I don't think the TDP should care much about specific outer shapes (like the quadrail cross-section) or cosmetic differences in this design, but should care greatly about functional improvements or needs.
On a different note, if this becomes a going project I would like to support it, but I'm not a manufacturer and don't own a machine shop. Perhaps this could be organized as some sort of nonprofit corporation (it won't be a charitable 501(c)(3) of course) which people could join, and by joining they might get minor benefits such as being first in line to buy products based on this design, hopefully at a discount, from companies that are early manufacturers. (I'm well aware that buying early likely means I'll be getting a beta version at a higher cost than later final versions - but it might be fun to buy one anyway.) Just another thought for discussion.
I'm particularly interested in these features:
-easily removable barrels
-a standardized improved bolt and carrier design
-not needing the buffer tube buffer/spring setup (if I understand correctly)
On that last point, I think it fully makes sense to initially do this as just an upper that's compatible with standard AR15 lowers - but after that upper design is to market and debugged, then it might make sense to do a new lower design with features such as an ambi safety, modified bolt catch, and most of all a design to handle a folding stock with no need for accommodating the AR15 buffer tube arrangement.
I am not a design engineer, but a computer security guy with some program management experience. One thing I have figured out over the years is that to implement a project improvement program, someone has to define what you want to improve and what will be considered acceptable.
So let me ask some questions:
1. Are you trying to design a weapons system that will replace the current US military carbine?
OR
2. Are you trying to design the best civilian rifle?
The specs for the #1 really do not make a great rifle for #2.
i.e.
For #1, quick mag changes are essential as well and the ability to do multiple mag dumps. For #2, quick mag changes are a nice to have. Multiple mag dumps happen less and less as the price of ammunition goes up.
For #2, the ability to take large game like deer with JSP bullets would be a great selling point. For #1, it is a FMJ world and the bullets need to frag.
For #2, compatible mags to an already existing system is a great selling point. Even if the internals need to be changed out. For #1, I consider it a liability if the current mags don't work perfectly.
Weight matters to both, but the military is trending to going heavy, where I am trying to go less and less.
Length can matter to both, but the military can do things that civilians can not or can not without extra cost and paperwork.
For #1, they want one cartridge and that is that. For #2, a switch cartridge rifle configuration is a great selling point.
Yeah we could release a pdf and anyone could check specs of parts.
The bolt catch would be dependent on what bolt catch your AR lower had.
This design is:
-long stroke piston with a non-AR bolt/carrier design
-steel rails for the carrier
-steel trunion
-headspaces like a Mauser (easy to cut barrels, don't need a barrel extension for every barrel)
-you can swap the barrels with an allen wrench
-etc.
If there's enough support/interest in the project, we'll release what we have. It's not 100% but is pretty close. Here's a couple pics:
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g201/Justinmd/Untitled-1.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g201/Justinmd/Untitled-2.jpg
Massound,
If you need any conceptual 3D parts let me know. I'm sure we can work something out if having part in hand is helpful in the design. I have printed a few parts in the firearms area. I can use SolidWorks files and the material is an ABS/PC blend. I also have software and program for 5 axis CNC's if help is needed there.
http://www.powerstrokenation.com/photopost/data/721/medium/3D_Printed_AR2.JPG
http://www.powerstrokenation.com/photopost/data/721/medium/3D_Printed_AR1.JPG
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1829/pistondesignv2.png
There are two key features I would like to point out.
1. Thumb Screw Pressure Adjustor for different barrel length or suppressor setup. The thumb screw simply increase or decrease the internal blow back gas pressure for the appropriate operation.
2. Composite Piston Dish pushes the bolt carrier group for shell extraction and feeds magazine bullet to the chamber. It completes one operation cycle without the need of buffer tube. This feature helps reduce weight and allows the attachment of folding stock.
3. All key Piston + push arms components are made with heat resistance light weight composite materials.
4. The counter balance and the pressure relief valve are the keys to balance the entire cycle of operations.
Just update the diagram with v2 design.
Larry Vickers
05-22-11, 19:48
Guys I am all for free and open design discussion - I have been involved in many
The one rule that I have always kept uppermost in my mind is 'are we making this different to make it better or are we making it different just to be different'
Ask yourself that on a regular basis as you move forward- this applies to everyone and helps keep your efforts 'in the hood'
Be safe
LAV
LAV, that's very true and something we need to keep in mind. When I laid out the specs for the design, I tried to include the best features of all the existing designs. The AK and AR are obvious contributors of course. But there is a limit on how much "awesomeness" you can pack into a design, and a lot of it is subjective. For example, I consider fixed ejection preferable, and don't need to be able to remove the barrel in 30 seconds. We have all seen direct impingement rule the day, then be considered chopped liver, then to come back in favor to some degree after some bad side effects of piston AR's surfaced. Do you feel that there is room for improvement in rifle design today? I've read somewhere that you were involved with the HK 416 (or was it the HK pistol?), anyhow, in talking to some HK engineers at SHOT one year, I got the sense that even they felt constrained by the "box" of the AR platform.
CPTM4, It is good to see some out of the box thinking. I see some issues which you may have already considered, namely large reciever height to contain a circular cam capable of moving the BCG several inches. Without a recoil spring, you may experience some problems with bolt bounce causing the BCG to come out of battery. There are ways of working around those I'm sure.
Blowby, excellent! If this project moves forward, you will be an invaluable asset. The actual upper receiver and the forendn, both extruded pieces, would benefit greatly from prototyping rather than just moving to tooling. Thank you for your offer! Also that 5 axis capability might come in handy for cam paths and such.
RWblue, this is definitely not oriented toward the military. I saw first hand what it was like with the ACR and those solicitations. Also, since this will fit on an AR lower, the calibers are limited to AR calibers, 5.56, 300Whisper/BLK, etc. I personally of the camp that I don't consider switching calibers to be that useful. I thought it was the greatest thing for quite some time. I have a .40 and .357 Sig barrel for my pistol, I bought a bolt gun that was switch barrel and designed another one. What I found was it wasn't useful to me because I just never switched them around. A 5.56 upper and a 6.8 upper is a little different, since they all have their own dedicated optic, bolt, etc. Other people may have vastly different experience. In any case, on this upper design, you can swap barrels with an allen wrench. Does that clarify the design intent a bit?
Someotherguy, again good points. I consider the IP stuff fully relevant. We've dealt with it our other products, it's just part of the game. I wish it wasn't quite so complex though.
I would want to impose as few restrictions on the design as possible if it was open source (in reference to your levels of adherence to the TDP) but at the same time, a design freeze has to be implemented at some point for production. Maybe this frozen TDP is the one to release, but with the intent that other manufacturers would be supply aftermarket parts (i.e. market a chrome lined barrel instead of the stock nitrided barrel) and that any deviation from the TDP would have to be published. Manufacturers could make the full upper if they wanted but again would have to agree to publish any deviations from the frozen TDP. Naturally, there would be a Gen 2, 3, etc. and any improvements made to the TDP by the aftermarket could be incorporated into the new "official" TDP at will. I think you are on the right track here. My question then is, have we de-incentivized improvements to the TDP when an aftermarket company will see their own little enhancement included in the full distribution, version 2.0, TDP?
Thanks for the thoughts guys! To reiterate, a design review (the fun part), would be the next major step. But before that, we still need to work out some details and find someone who is capable of ramrodding the project. A designer/engineer familiar with low volume production could potentially earn some beer money or even a full salary.
Justin
If I understood Larry message correctly, I think we ought to ask ourselves the following questions.
Are we bringing any unique features to do the table? Are we creating a better and more efficient design?
*OR *
Are we just re-engineering wheels when they are already plenty of better proven designs in the market?
SomeOtherGuy
05-23-11, 09:54
I think this project could be a wild success even without any unique features. It's fine if it simply reorganizes a variety of existing ideas in a particularly good implementation. That's how the overwhelming majority of gun designs since 1950 or so have come about.
Value of this project? Primarily in creating a single concept of a modern small to medium caliber semiauto rifle, without being subject to the severe design restrictions of all proprietary designs. Nearly all existing cloned/copied designs originated from military designs that saw production in multiple countries and by numerous companies. That is becoming a much rarer thing today, resulting in a multitude of proprietary designs, many of which are individually good, but limit potential aftermarket support and enhancement. This project could get around that.
The AR15 is certainly well proven and works great, but that can also be said about the M14, FAL, 1911, etc.... just because a design is solid doesn't mean it needs to be the end-all, be-all. Especially with a project like this focused on the civilian market. You could run a military with no small arms designed after 1960 and not be significantly disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean that innovation is a bad thing.
Going to specifics on this concept:
-DI works fine, but pistons do also, and many people prefer them
-Quick-change barrels may not be needed, but can be useful and have little drawback
-A folding stock isn't essential, but it can be really nice to have
etc. etc.
The other value of this project, which is derivative of the first, is that this could potentially result in a significantly lower cost to the end-user when compared to proprietary designs, because the manufacturers of this design have little to no research and development cost, and cannot product any features of the design that are part of the open source TDP. That means competition based on manufacturing and distribution costs only, not claims of superior design of engineering (some of which today is simply successful exploitation of fanboyism). In other words, prices and competition like we see for AR15 clones, and unlike what we see for the SCAR, ACR, XCR, etc.
Assuming we could do a better job than proprietary designs, what criterias would you consider a better or more efficient design/implementations? Are we creating another AR design, or a completely new tactical rifle design with unique caliber?
I think this project could be a wild success even without any unique features. It's fine if it simply reorganizes a variety of existing ideas in a particularly good implementation. That's how the overwhelming majority of gun designs since 1950 or so have come about.
Value of this project? Primarily in creating a single concept of a modern small to medium caliber semiauto rifle, without being subject to the severe design restrictions of all proprietary designs. Nearly all existing cloned/copied designs originated from military designs that saw production in multiple countries and by numerous companies. That is becoming a much rarer thing today, resulting in a multitude of proprietary designs, many of which are individually good, but limit potential aftermarket support and enhancement. This project could get around that.
The AR15 is certainly well proven and works great, but that can also be said about the M14, FAL, 1911, etc.... just because a design is solid doesn't mean it needs to be the end-all, be-all. Especially with a project like this focused on the civilian market. You could run a military with no small arms designed after 1960 and not be significantly disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean that innovation is a bad thing.
Going to specifics on this concept:
-DI works fine, but pistons do also, and many people prefer them
-Quick-change barrels may not be needed, but can be useful and have little drawback
-A folding stock isn't essential, but it can be really nice to have
etc. etc.
The other value of this project, which is derivative of the first, is that this could potentially result in a significantly lower cost to the end-user when compared to proprietary designs, because the manufacturers of this design have little to no research and development cost, and cannot product any features of the design that are part of the open source TDP. That means competition based on manufacturing and distribution costs only, not claims of superior design of engineering (some of which today is simply successful exploitation of fanboyism). In other words, prices and competition like we see for AR15 clones, and unlike what we see for the SCAR, ACR, XCR, etc.
Magic_Salad0892
05-23-11, 12:14
I'm going to be following this. When I have something to contribute, I will.
This is a great idea, and I'd love to see it work.
So this is a nice topic and all and since I've been wondering something for a while now I'm just going to post it here:
Instead of dropping an AK piston into an AR, why not modify the direct impingement system? Change where the gas is vented. Shorten the gas tube, add a tiny "piston" in the upper between it and the gas key, and blow the gas out the side of the upper or something? Actually design something instead of McGuyvering an AK piston system into an AR.
P.S: Why can't I post in General Discussion? :p
Instead of design an complete rifle, which is a very ambitious project in my humble opinion, why not just focus on one rifle key component (i.e. BCG, handguard, stock, stripped receiver, iron sight, magazine...etc). It would takes less time to complete and easier to see the result.
Designing one component at a time, would be a good test to see if we have what it takes to do a better job than proprietary designs. The experience and knowledge we gained from designing one component at a time, would also help pave the way for a future complete rifle design.
Anyone want to pick the first component?
I nominate the gas key to gas tube relationship as noted above. :)
SomeOtherGuy
05-23-11, 16:47
Instead of design an complete rifle, which is a very ambitious project in my humble opinion,
It currently appears that a professional firearms designer with excellent credentials has already made a design for a complete upper (not a complete rifle). I am far more inclined to follow on his proposed design, with potential for changes as useful, than to take the different approach you suggest.
I would also suggest that if you want to pursue a sort of open-source firearm component design team, that would be a good topic for a new thread.
I thought we are all firearm designing amateurs at best, are we not?
It currently appears that a professional firearms designer with excellent credentials has already made a design for a complete upper (not a complete rifle). I am far more inclined to follow on his proposed design, with potential for changes as useful, than to take the different approach you suggest.
I would also suggest that if you want to pursue a sort of open-source firearm component design team, that would be a good topic for a new thread.
P.S: Why can't I post in General Discussion? :p
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54962
I'll post more later tonight, just wanted to say one thing quickly.
-One (edited, I had Cptm4 before), you have a great idea with your gas system. Unfortunately that is a patented idea, with the design done by myself. I do not own the patent however as it was done when I worked for another company. You are also right to not take this endeavor lightly. I will add that I have worked a number of rifles (some the whole thing, some just small parts). An upper is very doable. Well as Someotherguy pointed out it has already been done and I posted the pictures. That design was months and months of hard work, and it still is not quite perfected. I would encourage a "from the ground up" open source design, it would be a great experiment to see the end result. I could not partake because of being busy with bolt gun stuff, but perhaps I could give some pointers here and there. I'm sure there's many talented engineers on this board or on the net. I get emails periodically from engineers who want to come work for us and design guns, I can point them this way.
Thanks for your clarification. With respect, I did not expect a professional designer would just share his works online with anyone.
We both know my concept was not that good at all. My idea was simply inspired by pistons combustion engines and steam powered locomotion. I was hoping to replace the standard AR reciprocating shell extraction and shell feeding motions with a circular motion induced by the piston dish. I was hoping the circular motion would introduce less recoil than the conventional reciprocating motions.
As others have already pointed out, my concept was far too complex and there are already plenty of simpler designs in the market. This is a dead end for me and I am rethinking another completely different concept.
I shall leave you alone for your work. Good luck guys!
I'll post more later tonight, just wanted to say one thing quickly.
CPTM4, you have a great idea with your gas system. Unfortunately that is a patented idea, with the design done by myself. I do not own the patent however as it was done when I worked for another company. You are also right to not take this endeavor lightly. I will add that I have worked a number of rifles (some the whole thing, some just small parts). An upper is very doable. Well as Someotherguy pointed out it has already been done and I posted the pictures. That design was months and months of hard work, and it still is not quite perfected. I would encourage a "from the ground up" open source design, it would be a great experiment to see the end result. I could not partake because of being busy with bolt gun stuff, but perhaps I could give some pointers here and there. I'm sure there's many talented engineers on this board or on the net. I get emails periodically from engineers who want to come work for us and design guns, I can point them this way.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54962
Ah, thank you, sir. I wasn't curious enough to actually try to find out.
I know little about weapon design, and even less about machining, etc.
However, I once we have something a little more concrete, you can count on me to help support such a project to some degree or the other.
-Adam
Adam, thanks. If we move forward, help will be needed in a lot of areas, even just saying what features you would want, i.e. forward assist vs. no forward assist, etc.
Cptm4, there's no need to bow out. I would, however, reconsider focusing on recoil reduction as a mainstay of your operating system. AR recoil is very mild, and an efficient brake can reduce it further. Proper gas tuning will help as well. If you have ideas, explore them. Sometimes I'll go down a road of a relatively radical design, only to find a dead end, but somewhere along there I may pick up a key improvement I can use in other designs.
Again good points Somotherguy, it would be interesting to see what manufacturers were interested, if any. It's a travesty that machine work is so costly in the US. I hear frequently that shops have to charge 75/hour just to stay in business. But if we can hand them a "free" TDP, that would go along way towards making a lower cost upper. Imagine a next gen AR priced like the old AR-180s (a very cool rifle itself). And what is the complaint you hear about both the SCAR and ACR? That you can't get parts, that the 7.62x39 conversion kit is AWOL for the ACR, you can't cut and SBR the SCAR barrel due to the chrome lining (although I think it has been done), etc, etc. Now we could create a free market in the sense that any demand that wasn't being filled could rapidly be filled by one or several manufacturers, and the market could select the best solution while others changed their niche schemed up something better yet.
Justin
Magic_Salad0892
05-26-11, 13:33
What about a direct gas system with a smaller port, located under the barrel instead of on top of it, that had the recoil spring around the tube itself or something?
Or maybe a recoil system like the MAC-11, but an under-barrel gas system?
Quick idea, I'll think more about it later.
IMO, only LMG, and PDWs need pistons.
SomeOtherGuy
05-26-11, 15:19
I'm more inclined to talk details once I see the design. Of course I expect you're figuring out IP protection and your general approach before you publish the whole design.
I'm sure you thought of this, but ease of manufacturing would be a plus. The AR15 is currently reasonably affordable due to enormous economies of scale, but it's inherently a fairly difficult and machining-intensive design. The original AR18 swung pretty far in the opposite direction, but was at least partly on the right track. I'm not too fond of stampings for nice gun parts, but simplified internal parts and maybe some external parts being extrusions, or capable of being made from extrusions with minimal machining, would be pluses.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.