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.
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.
-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
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…)
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
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
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.
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).
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
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:
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.
