Modern Varmint style uppers and lowers

[xdmer]

I just want to clarify here, that my choices are not to support having a cheaper build. I like having replaceable brass deflectors, for maintenance and customizing ejection patterns (will there be options?).

I don't want a forward assist but I can see the desire, however, a lighter trimmer rifle is better in my opinion. For me it's I'll take it or leave it, either is okay. My preference for 7075 is for a tougher more durable material with less bulk for strength in the receiver set. This will hold up better over long term parts swaps. (please correct me if I'm wrong).

This is an interesting development and good choice. My preference would be 7075, integral brass deflector isn't needed, nor is a forward assist.

[alberta tactical rifle]

Absolutely. Like jiff says, just very excited about the possibilities.

If one model of upper is all that is on the table at this time, I encourage you to consider how it may seem to the RCMP if you made a fully featured upper for the MV-S then produced a featureless/slick side upper in the future vs making a featureless/slick side upper first, then produce a fully featured upper that has more/different features than the MV-S or MV initially had. Seems like a possible excuse for another examination/gauntlet. Its easy to travel the road that has allready been snow plowed, might as well clear the snow infront of your shop while you have the tractor warm from plowing your drive way. Lol

Im sure you have also allready considered this, but your choice in upper style will also have an effect on who your priority target audience is. Perhaps a thread with a poll for different versions at different costs would help level out where the best choice of action is.

If these get approval, I hope you will offer custom matched serials once again.

From past experience it is easy to add or remove a feature like forward assist or shell deflector without upsetting anything. It seems cost is paramount to most.
No firm decision has been made yet but from the flood of emails and suggestions to banter to downright obnoxious posts on the forums it seems forward assist is a low priority but price is a high one. You can't have it both ways.

Custom serial numbers like your MH and MV have pose a time consuming logistical nightmare and to keep costs down are not being offered, at least at this time.

[alberta tactical rifle]

I just want to clarify here, that my choices are not to support having a cheaper build. I like having replaceable brass deflectors, for maintenance and customizing ejection patterns (will there be options?).

I don't want a forward assist but I can see the desire, however, a lighter trimmer rifle is better in my opinion. For me it's I'll take it or leave it, either is okay. My preference for 7075 is for a tougher more durable material with less bulk for strength in the receiver set. This will hold up better over long term parts swaps. (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I think we are on the same page.
I prefer to put the ATRS brand on quality products. There already is a lot of low quality crap available.
7 series material is my choice. Many ARs are made of 6061 and they work, but I believe that the 7075 will last longer and withstand stresses and wear and tear better. To try and make up for the difference in material costs a replaceable shell deflector is what I would prefer.
The current shell deflector we employ on the MVs works extremely well even for left handed shooters. IF someone wanted to modify a shell deflector to achieve some goal we have them in stock if it did not work out as they planned and they are not expensive. If the question is " are we going to be offering an assortment of shell deflectors?" the answer is not at this time, what we have works and to spend more R&D on different shell deflectors will only increase the end cost.
The current design sends the fired casings out of the port at about the 1:30 position from the shooter, typically in about a 3 foot diameter spot in front of the shooter, which for most situations is pretty close to ideal.

[emerson]

From past experience it is easy to add or remove a feature like forward assist or shell deflector without upsetting anything. It seems cost is paramount to most.
No firm decision has been made yet but from the flood of emails and suggestions to banter to downright obnoxious posts on the forums it seems forward assist is a low priority but price is a high one. You can't have it both ways.

Custom serial numbers like your MH and MV have pose a time consuming logistical nightmare and to keep costs down are not being offered, at least at this time.

Cost is huge for the masses. Walmart does ok. Boutique businesses are fun and pure, but often unprofitable. Bit of a crossroads here for ATRS. Think Magpul....
NR, 5.56, sub $2K sells. Make a hunting calibers option, sell more. You are trying to sell a rifle to those who don't know about CGN. Production delays kill impulse purchases. It's easy to tweak options after selling hundreds of basic rifles. Again, hunters are a much bigger market.

[xdmer]

That sounds great to me, knowing that parts are available is good, anyone can use a file

I can see many different calibers being used, who knows what differences slight changes will make? I honestly don't know. I'm just speaking from my experiences with XCR's - different beasts I know.

I think we are on the same page.
I prefer to put the ATRS brand on quality products. There already is a lot of low quality crap available.
7 series material is my choice. Many ARs are made of 6061 and they work, but I believe that the 7075 will last longer and withstand stresses and wear and tear better. To try and make up for the difference in material costs a replaceable shell deflector is what I would prefer.
The current shell deflector we employ on the MVs works extremely well even for left handed shooters. IF someone wanted to modify a shell deflector to achieve some goal we have them in stock if it did not work out as they planned and they are not expensive. If the question is " are we going to be offering an assortment of shell deflectors?" the answer is not at this time, what we have works and to spend more R&D on different shell deflectors will only increase the end cost.
The current design send the fired casings out of the port at about the 1:30 position from the shooter, typically in about a 3 foot diameter spot in front of the shooter, which for situations is pretty close to ideal.

[yohann160]

7075 aluminum - NO forward assist - uses AR parts

[greentips]

I would prefer a 7 series because my eyeballs are pretty to close to this thing.

Forward assist - I don't mind paying for it but I won't cry if it doesn't have one either.

[riptide]

Personally I think the other guys may get their privates slapped for essentially encouraging folks to purposefully thwart the laws in a work around of how the laws were intended, despite being poorly worded and creating a loophole. It concerns me that if parts of the firearms community keep pushing the envelope the backlash could be draconian given the love of re-interpretting and re-writing the laws the RCMP tends to have.

Having been in this industry for a very long time and invested in the firearms community for over 40 years I have seen and experienced the government in action in regards to firearms. Frankly I think if we push too hard, knowing that the feds now account to no-one and have more power it seems than the elected government thanks to the turd who handed over absolute power to the RCMP when it comes to guns, scares me a bit of how they will react. I do not condone this but am a realist basing my thoughts on past experiences.

ATRS... not to be an ass... but isn't this exactly what you guys did with the MV, MH and are contemplating/attempting to do with the MV sporter? Not that you're the only ones who've done this, and not that I'm complaining as I think they're great products... but I'm not seeing many differences between between what MD is planning/attempting and what you've (thankfully) said you're looking into doing.

[alberta tactical rifle]

ATRS... not to be an ass... but isn't this exactly what you guys did with the MV, MH and are contemplating/attempting to do with the MV sporter? Not that you're the only ones who've done this, and not that I'm complaining as I think they're great products... but I'm not seeing many differences between between what MD is planning/attempting and what you've (thankfully) said you're looking into doing.

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?

[Daver_II]

^^

AH Canada....

Where the government thinks it isn't a matter if, but rather when you will break the law....


It seems easy to me.... 18.5+" and over NR....
18.5" and under its R

So you make it short, you register... and the rules apply...
You make it long.... have at her in the bush.

Shouldn't need to call anyone.