Modern Varmint style uppers and lowers

[anoxia]

Rick you certainly made my day. Love my MH and was on the fence about getting a MV. But you've definitely changed my mind. Looking forward to the fine work you and your staff have ahead of you. If you need capital put up a general pre-order and we are in.

 

[riptide]

Well this is awesome, I think I'd rather wait for one of these ATRS Sporter Rifles than drink the macdef koolaid.

I'll just be getting both and deciding which one I like from there. I already seem to collect guns like they're matchbox cars... no reason not to do the same here. And if I find that I end up using one significantly more than the other (like my T97 vs Tavor), I'll just sell the unused one to fund something else.

 

[700-223]

The only ways to reduce costs is to have them made offshore by the tens of thousands, not a likely scenario as the market in Canada in minute.
Not pay the machinists or rent on our building, don't think that will go over well.
Make them out of recycled paper, not terribly durable though.
Not bother at all.

All joking aside.

What Canadians just don't get is the market in Canada is minuscule, so high volume production just is not possible. This is why the big companies don't even bother to with Canada when it comes to designing and producing something to fit our stupid laws. With the exceptions of a few handgun makers who are occasionally willing to make a 4.2" barrelled hand gun, I can't think of a single large gun maker who has offered anything that is truly ARish and made specifically for the Canadian market.

A friend of mine owns a part of 1 of the high end gun club/stores in Scottsdale. They sell more guns from their shop in 1 month than we do in a year and sell more ammo in a month than probably all Canadian gun stores do in 6 months together. Availability of full auto may play a part in this?

I can't remember the numbers exactly but seem to recall there are more people in Montana, a sparsely populated state than there are PAL holders in all of Canada.
And more SKS rifles have been made than the entire population of Canada, so the economies of scale just don't work with a tiny sales base.

Keep in mind too that ALL of the various Canadian NR rifles are not worth a dime in the USA as AR's don't have restrictions there and Canadian made AR style rifles on the whole are NON importable into the USA which kills any potential for sales from the beginning.

IF the market was there to sell even several thousand rifles rather than several hundred, which is really what the Canadian market will support, the numbers would change to a degree. Unfortunately this is not the case for firearms sales in Canada.
The simple fact is that Canada is an expensive country to produce things in as well as live in. The higher wages and taxes support our standard of living as well as our "free" medical system have a cost, and that cost is that Canadian made is more expensive due to our higher cost of living when compared to our southern neighbors.

Best explanation I’ve heard of firearms costs in Canada. Sounds like I better call and order my MV Grendel upper today before you guys get too busy Here’s hoping it comes in time for some coyote hunting next spring. We just got a new credit card, that meanss I can afford a new gun, right?

Sounds like quite a dilemma. Add features or save $50 or $100 bucks per receiver set to try to optimize your sales from 300 to 350 sets. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

Rick, I know I have been a thorn in your side (probably more than I should have been) previously about the trigger options on the Modern series, and I apologize for that.

But with this anouncement, you better believe I will be looking to purchase a couple MV-S reciever sets which would certainly be preferable over the MDI SLR's odd means of mating upper to lower amoung other things.

I am hopefull you will also consider doing a MH-S model as well.

I had heard this spring from a little birdy that this project was in the shop talk phase, but that you were not very receptive to moving forward on it at the time. I am certianly glad that thats not the case anymore, and look forward to adding a few more finely crafted ATRS rifles to the safe, soon they shall out number the IWI rifles.

Any chance we can see a teaser for the new MV-S?

No plans to do this with the MH , at least at this time.

At this point I am reluctant to offer photos or a CAD drawing as I feel it will help our competition seeing as they appear to still be deeply in the final design stages.
Once we have an FRT that will change but for now envision a Modern Varmint with standard AR rear charge handle in so far as appearance goes. Think of NO BOLTS or SCREWS to hold the upper and lower together just as both our MH and MV are currently are.

On another note many of you will notice your reply's are gone. I have gone through the entire thread and am trying to keep it as short as possible so at the risk of offending someone deleted reply's that did not contain pertinent information or questions that need an answer. This is not meant to slight anyone, simply a way that both new readers don't get lost and to help me keep answering or posing questions in a short and manageable thread. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

Don't care about a forward assist myself, but lefty does need an effective way to keep brass off the right side of his head.

This has my attention. The other product isn't due for months, so I'm not about to lock in a pre-order for anything until the day I'm ready to build. Looking forward to seeing what options are there on that day. Trigger pack compatibility is a nice plus too, as I've come to like such.

At the moment the plan is to employ the shell deflector we make for the MV. It is very effective at directing the spent casings out at between the 1 and 2 o'clock position.
The reason for us planning, at least at this time to use the MV deflector is it will allow us to save costs on the upper but in material and additional design/programming.
The less time we have to spend re-inventing things the less the finished product will cost.

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

Any way you can put the serial on the upper instead of the lower like an AR?

It is worth considering but the the onus would then be upon the end user to get the completed upper verified and registered. I can see that as a potential problem for the feds given that this project is aimed at the DIY crowd, we could run into resistance from the SFSS/RCMP as it is a total break from tradition on every semi auto we manufacture.

To muddy the waters by having a restricted version along with a NR version just seems potentially suicidal. I know there are semi autos where the serial number is on the upper, but is it worth really pulling the tiger tail and hope, or leave him sleep by simply submitting an existing design that already has a desired legal classification but would be considered as only a slightly modified model?

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.

 

[jiffx2781]

...

 

[frabill]

Cool, nice to see competition!

 

[rikkards]

Agreed. The shell deflector on my MV is very effective. No need to change it.

As far as a forward assist goes, the more I think about it the less I find it necessary. The MV doesn't have it and it functions perfectly fine.

If you incorporate a forward assist into the new design it will only result in additional costs with little to no additional benefit.

I think we only have a hard on for the forward assist because 1, it looks cool and 2, it is an ar-15 feature and we are not allowed to take ar-15's out to the back fourty. We always want what we have been told we can't have.

I can live without it if it helps to keep costs lower thus making it more affordable to more people. The more of these that you can put into people's hands the better it is for all of us.

Even Stoner didn't want the FA on the AR. It was retardedness by the US Army who demanded it to be there, since they were paying the bills he obliged. His argument is you should be able to push the bolt in without a forward assist with your thumb and if you did actually need one to force the bolt in, odds are there is something stopping the bolt to go in and you may just make it worse. Hunters in the US have found that the FA helps as you can slowly drop the bolt using the charging handle and then use it to get the bolt into chamber.

 

[GrizzlyLC]

Not a fan of being a Canadian? The more we have to mess with things the more it will cost. The UN marking regulations as well as the Canadian have to be adherred to.
The leaf on our rifles and products is our trademark.

We are expecting to be the same price range as out AT15 uppers and lowers at about $950.00 for a stripped upper and lower. BUT at this point we have not established an exact price point, nor whether to use 6061 or 7075 material as that also effect price. It seems everyone wants cheap cheap cheap, so we are wrestling with the material dilemma.

I probably have no clue what I'm talking about but the solution for materials could be as simple as offering the 7075 as an extra option and keep the 6061 as a budget option. you already have the layout on your website for such a thing. as far as I know your machining process should differ to much if at all, so it's not like you need to spend time redesigning and creating new G-Code.

 

[jiffx2781]

...

 

[Fordmam]

Can we buy any regular ar barrels for them provided they are 18.5”? Or do they have to be custom built?

 

[onetwentyish]

Agreed. The shell deflector on my MV is very effective. No need to change it.

As far as a forward assist goes, the more I think about it the less I find it necessary. The MV doesn't have it and it functions perfectly fine.

If you incorporate a forward assist into the new design it will only result in additional costs with little to no additional benefit.

I think we only have a hard on for the forward assist because 1, it looks cool and 2, it is an ar-15 feature and we are not allowed to take ar-15's out to the back fourty. We always want what we have been told we can't have.

I can live without it if it helps to keep costs lower thus making it more affordable to more people. The more of these that you can put into people's hands the better it is for all of us.

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?

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.

 

[Brian46]

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?

There is either going to be an even longer wait than the current MV for the MV-S if production capability is not at least quadrupled by the manufacturer. Then it will have to be increased exponentially again and again as each new manufacturer comes out with a new model or risk losing market share to consumers who will not wait,

 

[jiffx2781]

...

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

Can we buy any regular ar barrels for them provided they are 18.5”? Or do they have to be custom built?

The plan is to employ standard AR15 barrel extensions/barrels.

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

Explain the bushmaster ACR, RA XCR, SAN and any of the other rifles that have both restricted and NR FRT #'s. If the rcmp "cracking down" is such a viable concern.

As mentioned I know there are several rifles where the serial numbered part, hence that part being considered the gun is the upper. I think that changing from the lower being serialized to the upper, "could" allow the SFSS/RCMP to legitimately claim this is not a variant of our existing firearm. I guess the thing is is how much of a gamble do we want to undertake?

 

[alberta tactical rifle]

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?

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.

2 different versions is not in the plan at this time.
Not sure if a PDW stock will fit as we don't have 1 to try. How about we get finished testing what we have and see what the feds say? This entire project could be a waste of time based on what they decide.

 

[onetwentyish]

2 different versions is not in the plan at this time.
Not sure if a PDW stock will fit as we don't have 1 to try. How about we get finished testing what we have and see what the feds say? This entire project could be a waste of time based on what they decide.

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.

 

[xdmer]

I would rather not gamble on this, and you made good points. I surely don't want to be tugging the tiger by the tail in this current state of agitation.

As mentioned I know there are several rifles where the serial numbered part, hence that part being considered the gun is the upper. I think that changing from the lower being serialized to the upper, "could" allow the SFSS/RCMP to legitimately claim this is not a variant of our existing firearm. I guess the thing is is how much of a gamble do we want to undertake?