Modern Varmint style uppers and lowers

xdmer said:
XCR's have specific pistol designs, registered as such I think, or more specifically XCR-L Micro. Rifle / Restricted Rifle would depend on barrel, but they only come in 18.6 in Canada and I've never seen the micro / pistol barrels or uppers for sale here.

The design, intention and components are clearly restricted and non restricted.
Click to expand...
There is restricted xcr's just like ACR's the owners simply had a new short barrel made and sent in the paperwork to the cfc for the status change to restricted.

The caveat being you are instructed not to use the rifle (it remains in safe) until the paperwork has been processed by the cfc. Just because you have 30 days to report a status change does not make it legal to use in that period of time after the modifications were performed requiring the status change
 
Brianma65 said:
And how much you wanna bet,
When the SHTF, most people are going to look for a way out.

I can see some of them saying,

But officer,that's the way it came in the mail..lol
Click to expand...

I see this daily in my line of work. People are always more than happy to serve up anyone on a platter in the hopes of getting away with something they in most cases committed.
 
Wow... off the internet for a couple days and look what you miss! This sounds great! Not that my opinion matters much but 70 series for sure, no forward assist, and either bolted on or milled brass deflector (with higher material costs) would be just fine by me! Can't wait to get my hands on a set or two!
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
The MH and MV were only ever sold as completed and test rifles. Every one of which left here with minimally an 18.6" barrel. Any secondary uppers also were supplied with NR length barrels, so there is no room for anyone to claim that either platform has a restricted cousin of any sort. now with that being said we have no control over someone breaking the law and shortening the barrel effectively making the rifle a prohibited device, or changing the barrel to make it a restricted firearm. But as the manufacturer I am able to look any Judge in the eye and claim that we have never offered or made a restricted length barrel for either rifle, so if some idiot has installed 1 he had to modify the upper in the case of the MV or had a custom barrel made somewhere that employs the proprietary barrel extension. This was done to protect the legal status and the owners of our rifles.

We certainly are not suggesting to anyone however to purchase what we hope will be classified as a NR firearm and then play games with the government when you install an under 18.6" barrel. The law is pretty clear that you have 30 days to inform the CFC that you have completed assembly of a firearm and that the FRT# has to amended to reflect the change from "receiver only" to completed firearm once the firearm is complete and has a barrel installed. To counsel someone to pull the upper off every 29 days in the case of under 18.6" barrels in order to skirt having to register the gun as a restricted firearm in my opinion is simply trolling for a hassle, for ALL of us.

With Ars all being restricted this does not really matter, but purposefully trying to blur the lines between Non Restricted and Restricted with games could backfire badly.
Needless to say if we get the NR classification we are hoping for, we will not have any say in what folks do with their stripped upper/lowers. The onus then is on them to comply, or not to comply with the laws, it is out of our hands. IF short barrels are installed onto any of these platforms it will create some FRT#s that reflect restricted legal status.
We tried as much as possible to protect the legal classification of our MH and MV making it as hard as possible to simply swap out barrels to create a restricted firearms class.
We can only do so much however to try and protect the many from the few who just have to screw with things and create potential unintended consequences like the Swiss Arms debacle that effected many firearms owners.

My fear is that our development will be in vain in short order due to guys just having to push the envelope to the max. The current mag capacity and fitment issue is proof of what happens when guys just can't shut up or leave things alone.

Maccabee got a NR legal status on their project and good on them. But do you really think the SFSS/RCMP would have granted it if they had diclosed that you should install a short barrel and play games with the CFC every 29 days?
Click to expand...

I too worry about this. Mabey use the MV barrel extension and only sell uppers with barrels installed? not 100% customization put there is still plenty of other things to do to your build. I personally would pay that extra cash to ensure my rifle doesn't become restricted one day because "that guy" had to have 4 inches less of barrel.
 
mgroom said:
Was it suggested by Macdef themselves or was it cgn users? If the former, then there's clearly a problem and ATRS has a valid concern and Macdef are complete idiots. If it was the latter, this amounts to nothing more than mud slinging and bad mouthing the competition and deliberately trying to mislead people in an attempt to discredit a competitor who got a product to market first.
Click to expand...

It was mentioned a few times in another thread in another dealers forum. Looking for it now a large number of posts have been edited and many posts removed, I can't find the posts that were suggesting this. When I saw those posts it seemed to me someone was advocating playing games as a sales gimmick.

In the CSC forum the thread started by fenceline around post #80 in large font, the upper and lower are clearly called prototypes, which leads me to believe they are only marginally further along in development than what ATRS is. Only time will tell which if any product actually gets to market first.
With both companies in the same city, I wonder why there was no collaboration? Seems to me a co-operative effort may have proven productive for all parties.
 
To comment on page 8, the reason it has such a small shell deflector is because the body is wider and they didnt want it to stick out so much. There is one there though.
I imagine an atrs body could be required to be wider also and may face the same challenges. Hopefully not though.
Perhaps a removable one? A little nub that can get covered with a bigger nub if the user doesnt mind that sticking out? Just an idea..
That assumes the secret to NR involves a similar dimensional change as the other project.

A forward assist is useless. I doubt anybody who suggested it has ever even needed it.

Use your thumb, like Stoner said, if you ever get into 2000 round, full auto gunfight in the desert.
 
Last edited:
no-one special said:
It was mentioned a few times in another thread in another dealers forum. Looking for it now a large number of posts have been edited and many posts removed, I can't find the posts that were suggesting this. When I saw those posts it seemed to me someone was advocating playing games as a sales gimmick.

In the CSC forum the thread started by fenceline around post #80 in large font, the upper and lower are clearly called prototypes, which leads me to believe they are only marginally further along in development than what ATRS is. Only time will tell which if any product actually gets to market first.
With both companies in the same city, I wonder why there was no collaboration? Seems to me a co-operative effort may have proven productive for all parties.
Click to expand...

I think the unpredictable factor is the RCMP. Who knows how long and if they'll give a nr frt
 
jiffx2781 said:
Raw materials cost is one of the lesser costs in the big picture of producing the finished product. It is definitely worth the few bucks more to go with 7075. I'll pick quality any day. It's not worth cutting corners to save a few pesos.
Just my .02
Click to expand...

onetwentyish said:
This. Unless your material choice will save the consumer 25%+ on just the reciever set, its not worth the consideration in my opinion.
Click to expand...

This is how it starts, isn't it?

"oh choose the better material, it's only 60$ more"

"oh make it work with X not just Y, it only costs Z$ more"

"oh add this feature, it's going to need that anyways, might as well"

All those little things add up. If you always choose the "oh it's just 50$ more for the better quality" option, you end up with a product that's a couple hundred dollars more than it could have been.

There's an enormous difference between being able to sell the rifle for 750$ or 950$.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
Initially we figured to include it, but are undecided at this point due to costs. To include a forward assist and milled in place shell deflector requires larger material, which adds to the cost as well as adds about 30 minutes of machine time, which again increases the end cost. The shell deflectors on the MH and MV are fairly inexpensive to make in comparison to milling them out of the larger billet. 6 minutes of machine time and we can use the scrap from the mags wells for material.

It seems more guys are in favor of cheaper than any other feature and you can't have it both ways. We still have time to change this as we are still working on the final prototype to put into production.

I guess in the end it all depends on whether a forward assist and milled in shell deflector are worth roughly $100.00 in the overall cost. We have not established a firm price yet, but this is just another part to factor into the final price.
Click to expand...

if stuff like a forward assist or milled shell deflector would add 100$ or more to the final price of the product, speaking personally, I'd prefer you omit them.

At this point, "we" as a community should just be focused on getting as many black rifles into the bush as possible. Afterwards, additional options like that could be offered. 100$ is not insignificant in the final price. 60$ for material, 100$ for a forward assist, that makes the difference between a 950$ receiver set and an 800$ receiver set. That's a meaningful difference.
 
onetwentyish said:
This is why I purpose the 2 versions of the MV-S upper, both a slick side version and a fully featured version. Yes its more SKU's, but neither the "cheaper is better" or the "I've already paid this much, why cheap out now" crowds will be alienated, and the different versions could easily be ran in batches to limit transition time between producing different versions. Pass the cost on to those who want it bad enough to pay for it, and if one of the models doesn't sell as good as the other, discontinue it.

I personally think offering 2 versions will give ATRS an additional edge over the competition, and the Fully Featured version would just be that much more of an edge as its not something the competition is offering yet either.

If you produce Fully Featured uppers (has a machined in forward assist, machined in case deflector, dust cover, you wont just sell a few, it will be loads. Cloners dont usually make just one clone, they usually make at least a handfull if not enough to fill a damn armory.

If you produce Slick Side (no forward assist, no case deflector, no dust cover) or a standard featured MV-S upper (no forward assist, bolt on case deflector, dust cover) it will not appeal as much to the folks who are potential repeat buyers and instead casing after the one a done crowd.

Why not make 2 options that cover all your bases and drive the competition right out of town as fast as they came into town? :p

Question Rick, will the reciever width dimensions allow for PDW style stocks? I would like to build a PDW with a barrel shroud at some point. Something that couldn't be done with the side charger on the standard MV.
Click to expand...

I think that's the ideal we'd all wish for, but I doubt ATRS would want to deal with TWO separate versions right from the get-go.

But speaking personally, I'd gladly buy a slick upper with a lower, move all my A4 clone stuff over to it and deal with not having a forward assist for a bit, and then one day buy an 'upgraded' version with those extra features, move all the components over again, and have a blank slick receiver ready to be built into a 2nd rifle!
 
A shell deflector would be a big factor for us lefties, personally I wouldn't buy one without it. The forward assist would be nice, but really wouldn't affect my decision. Really hoping for an ATRS NR to go with my ATRS AR-15!
 
Brian46 said:
Thinking that nobody is going to have a smith reproduce the extension for a caliber conversion or barrel swap is rather naive
Click to expand...

A smith isnt going to let a unregistered restricted firearm leave his shop. Yeah obviously if a guy was so inclined he could shorten the barrel on his own but a proprietary barrel extension just adds an extra step. Im probably alone on that idea anyways
 
+1 for NO forward assist
+1 for removable/replaceable shell deflector
+1000 for ALL (read drop-in trigger group) AR parts compatibility

Just FYI, this news killed a pre-order I was going to make...
 
+1 for NO forward assist
+1 for removable/replaceable shell deflector
+1 Normal AR Triggers
+1 Ar CH
+1 AR everything actually... lol...
 
Want Forward assist.
Want deflector (removable is perfectly fine)
Don't care about drop in triggers.... there are plenty of great non-drop in
 
Realistically if someone’s going to break the law and do this all they need is a hack saw. I agree it’s kind of a non issue. I skimmed back a bit but couldn’t find it, is there any sort of timeline on this project yet or is it still too early to tell?
 
Could a forward assist be a user installed option?
Maybe machine a slot and install a gasket/cover if no forward assist is wanted. Or attach the forward assist module?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom