NY compliant lower receiver ? Updated with pics and now video

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - NY compliant lower receiver ? Updated with pics and now video (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 3/1/2014 6:08:10 AM EDT

Hypothetically speaking of course, if a company was to produce a NY compliant lower receiver, would more people want a high end version or a basic version just to get by with being compliant until this law is overturned. Please no unnecessary comments, try to stick to the question, thanks

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:01:21 AM EDT

[#1]

All lower receivers are NY complaint, it just matters what you bolt , screw, or stick into and on them that makes the difference.

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:11:33 AM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
All lower receivers are NY complaint, it just matters what you bolt , screw, or stick into and on them that makes the difference.

View Quote

First post, QFT and all that...

Unless maybe you machined a 80% lower so that you could make essentially an integrated, non-detectable, top loading magazine; which could be machined to accept magazines properly in the future.

Otherwise... I don't know what the OP is looking for.

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:15:06 AM EDT

[#3]

Like a FAB-10?

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:20:48 AM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
Like a FAB-10?

View Quote

Yes, exactly! Maybe even something that you wouldn't have to open the action to reload. Would people concerned about spending $20-$50 more for a user friendly version. I myself want something that may cost a little more, but has all the bells and whistles. Just trying to get some other peoples opinions.

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:23:01 AM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
All lower receivers are NY complaint, it just matters what you bolt , screw, or stick into and on them that makes the difference.

View Quote

I think at this point we all know that, but I'm talking about a receiver you could put whatever upper you wanted on it and still be NY compliant. Except of course a SBR.

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:24:47 AM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yes, exactly!

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Like a FAB-10?

Yes, exactly!

Id want about as basic as possible that was in spec and durable. Wouldn't need no fancy roll mark, just the word UNSAFE and a serial number. I would buy one just to not have to move my rifles out of state.

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:32:49 AM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

Id want about as basic as possible that was in spec and durable. Wouldn't need no fancy roll mark, just the word UNSAFE and a serial number. I would buy one just to not have to move my rifles out of state.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Like a FAB-10?

Yes, exactly!

Id want about as basic as possible that was in spec and durable. Wouldn't need no fancy roll mark, just the word UNSAFE and a serial number. I would buy one just to not have to move my rifles out of state.

I edited my post while you were answering.

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:40:20 AM EDT

[#8]

The FAB-10 would be more appealing if it were cast/forged with a solid fake magazine below the mag well, so it looked more like a regular rifle. I don't care for the "Look Ma, no mag!" look.

Posted: 3/1/2014 7:43:51 AM EDT

[#9]

R

Quote History

Quoted:
The FAB-10 would be more appealing if it were cast/forged with a solid fake magazine below the mag well, so it looked more like a regular rifle. I don't care for the "Look Ma, no mag!" look.

View Quote

I personally don't care about looks, function and price point get my votes.

Posted: 3/1/2014 8:17:12 AM EDT

[#10]

102 views and only four people gave their input. I know there are more people out there that have an opinion.

Posted: 3/1/2014 8:40:42 AM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
R
I personally don't care about looks, function and price point get my votes.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
R

Quoted:
The FAB-10 would be more appealing if it were cast/forged with a solid fake magazine below the mag well, so it looked more like a regular rifle. I don't care for the "Look Ma, no mag!" look.

I personally don't care about looks, function and price point get my votes.

I generally agree, however I will suggest that compliant rifles that are nearly identical to banned rifles serve as a bigger FU to the antigun politicians, since they seem to be so concerned with looks. Similar appearances would also make enforcement of unSAFE a bit more difficult.

Posted: 3/1/2014 8:44:10 AM EDT

[#12]

I would be interested in a "high end" version or a "peasant" version.

Make it!

Posted: 3/1/2014 8:52:53 AM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

I generally agree, however I will suggest that compliant rifles that are nearly identical to banned rifles serve as a bigger FU to the antigun politicians, since they seem to be so concerned with looks. Similar appearances would also make enforcement of unSAFE a bit more difficult.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
R

Quoted:
The FAB-10 would be more appealing if it were cast/forged with a solid fake magazine below the mag well, so it looked more like a regular rifle. I don't care for the "Look Ma, no mag!" look.

I personally don't care about looks, function and price point get my votes.

I generally agree, however I will suggest that compliant rifles that are nearly identical to banned rifles serve as a bigger FU to the antigun politicians, since they seem to be so concerned with looks. Similar appearances would also make enforcement of unSAFE a bit more difficult.

I really don't give a shit about that, and the kind of officer who is going to hassle you based on how your rifle looks is also the type no will hassle you over other shit, so I'd prefer not to egg him on by having a legal rifle that looks potentially illegal, and inviting him into my life for a conversation. Easier just to point to something that doesn't look like it could possibly be non-compliant and cutting the conversation off right there.

I'll gladly fight this BS law, but I'm not waving a red cape in front of a bull begging him to charge me. But to each their own.

Posted: 3/1/2014 9:18:10 AM EDT

[#14]

This statement is by no means a sales pitch and I do not want the moderators on this board to get the wrong idea. We have something in the works and I'm just trying to get some views as to what you guys would prefer. When things are where they need to be, I will go through the correct avenues on here before I doing any advertising of any sort. Like I said before, I prefer something that may cost $20-$50 more, but is more user friendly. We are trying to do this the right way with the powers that be to get the proper approvals, but it doesn't look like NYS will ever give an approval letter on anything when it comes to com-pliancy, let's just hope I'm wrong. Keep the opinions coming and I will update everyone as soon as I have something to update.

Posted: 3/1/2014 9:22:54 AM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
This statement is by no means a sales pitch and I do not want the moderators on this board to get the wrong idea. We have something in the works and I'm just trying to get some views as to what you guys would prefer. When things are where they need to be, I will go through the correct avenues on here before I doing any advertising of any sort. Like I said before, I prefer something that may cost $20-$50 more, but is more user friendly. We are trying to do this the right way with the powers that be to get the proper approvals, but it doesn't look like NYS will ever give an approval letter on anything when it comes to com-pliancy, let's just hope I'm wrong. Keep the opinions coming and I will update everyone as soon as I have something to update.

View Quote

If it does not have a provision for a detachable magazine, why would you need to seek NYS approval?

Posted: 3/1/2014 9:36:12 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

If it does not have a provision for a detachable magazine, why would you need to seek NYS approval?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
This statement is by no means a sales pitch and I do not want the moderators on this board to get the wrong idea. We have something in the works and I'm just trying to get some views as to what you guys would prefer. When things are where they need to be, I will go through the correct avenues on here before I doing any advertising of any sort. Like I said before, I prefer something that may cost $20-$50 more, but is more user friendly. We are trying to do this the right way with the powers that be to get the proper approvals, but it doesn't look like NYS will ever give an approval letter on anything when it comes to com-pliancy, let's just hope I'm wrong. Keep the opinions coming and I will update everyone as soon as I have something to update.

If it does not have a provision for a detachable magazine, why would you need to seek NYS approval?

I myself feel and I think other guys would feel a lot more comfortable with a letter of approval. I'm not saying it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt.

Posted: 3/1/2014 10:02:34 AM EDT

[#17]

I would prefer a lower as cheap as possible that I can stick my uppers on. If by any chance the law is struck down I don't want to be out hundreds of dollars for a, now, novelty lower.

Also top loading sucks. I would rather have an ugly thordsen stock and a detachable mag. I want, and have been trying to find a way to make a lower like the LWRC lowers out of a raw forging.

Posted: 3/1/2014 10:34:48 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Hypothetically speaking of course, if a company was to produce a NY compliant lower receiver, would more people want a high end version or a basic version just to get by with being compliant until this law is overturned. Please no unnecessary comments, try to stick to the question, thanks

View Quote

Do you mean something with a bottom/side loading box magazine and no cut out for a magazine catch?

I'd guess you'd have more demand for a cheaper/basic model. But you would probably
have the most demand for a model that was modifiable with minimal machining to
to be able to accept a detachable mag, in the future, should you decide to move to a free state.

Do it...and ya know NY wouldn't be the only market for such a lower.

Someone needs to reply with the TAKE MY MONEY gif.

FUAC (unnecessary comment ?....well you did want our "complaint" opinion

)

Posted: 3/1/2014 11:42:55 AM EDT

[#19]

I would think a basic design would sell better. I am sure you have seen the LWRC LR7? I do like my FAB-10 though..

Posted: 3/1/2014 12:07:52 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
I would think a basic design would sell better. I am sure you have seen the LWRC LR7? I do like my FAB-10 though..

<a href="http://s115.photobucket.com/user/tokarz1/media/IMAG0003_zps3b1b5c24.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/tokarz1/IMAG0003_zps3b1b5c24.jpg</a>

<a href="http://s115.photobucket.com/user/tokarz1/media/IMAG0002_zpsfbf35bfc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/tokarz1/IMAG0002_zpsfbf35bfc.jpg</a>

View Quote

I have seen pics of the lwrc lr7, but it is my understanding it is just a prototype right now. I love the FAB-10 as well, but it would be nice to have the option of reloading without breaking open the action.

Posted: 3/1/2014 1:03:08 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

I myself feel and I think other guys would feel a lot more comfortable with a letter of approval. I'm not saying it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
This statement is by no means a sales pitch and I do not want the moderators on this board to get the wrong idea. We have something in the works and I'm just trying to get some views as to what you guys would prefer. When things are where they need to be, I will go through the correct avenues on here before I doing any advertising of any sort. Like I said before, I prefer something that may cost $20-$50 more, but is more user friendly. We are trying to do this the right way with the powers that be to get the proper approvals, but it doesn't look like NYS will ever give an approval letter on anything when it comes to com-pliancy, let's just hope I'm wrong. Keep the opinions coming and I will update everyone as soon as I have something to update.

If it does not have a provision for a detachable magazine, why would you need to seek NYS approval?

I myself feel and I think other guys would feel a lot more comfortable with a letter of approval. I'm not saying it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt.

You won't get one, so don't bother. Stripped standard lowers re OK, so this is a no brainier. They will string you along forever, just do it.

Posted: 3/1/2014 1:21:54 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:

I myself feel and I think other guys would feel a lot more comfortable with a letter of approval. I'm not saying it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
This statement is by no means a sales pitch and I do not want the moderators on this board to get the wrong idea. We have something in the works and I'm just trying to get some views as to what you guys would prefer. When things are where they need to be, I will go through the correct avenues on here before I doing any advertising of any sort. Like I said before, I prefer something that may cost $20-$50 more, but is more user friendly. We are trying to do this the right way with the powers that be to get the proper approvals, but it doesn't look like NYS will ever give an approval letter on anything when it comes to com-pliancy, let's just hope I'm wrong. Keep the opinions coming and I will update everyone as soon as I have something to update.

If it does not have a provision for a detachable magazine, why would you need to seek NYS approval?

I myself feel and I think other guys would feel a lot more comfortable with a letter of approval. I'm not saying it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt.

You will never receive such a letter

Posted: 3/1/2014 5:38:56 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

You won't get one, so don't bother. Stripped standard lowers re OK, so this is a no brainier. They will string you along forever, just do it.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
This statement is by no means a sales pitch and I do not want the moderators on this board to get the wrong idea. We have something in the works and I'm just trying to get some views as to what you guys would prefer. When things are where they need to be, I will go through the correct avenues on here before I doing any advertising of any sort. Like I said before, I prefer something that may cost $20-$50 more, but is more user friendly. We are trying to do this the right way with the powers that be to get the proper approvals, but it doesn't look like NYS will ever give an approval letter on anything when it comes to com-pliancy, let's just hope I'm wrong. Keep the opinions coming and I will update everyone as soon as I have something to update.

If it does not have a provision for a detachable magazine, why would you need to seek NYS approval?

I myself feel and I think other guys would feel a lot more comfortable with a letter of approval. I'm not saying it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt.

You won't get one, so don't bother. Stripped standard lowers re OK, so this is a no brainier. They will string you along forever, just do it.

Yes, this is true that stripped lowers are okay, but we're limited to a build with no features if it is able to accept a detachable magazine.
Our intention is to proceed with or without a letter. I know, from your previous posts, that you know someone on the inside and I too have a source and have pretty much been told, w/out actually being told that there will be no letters of approval. We would still like to send the new lower in to be reviewed and maybe at least get a verbal okay for whatever that is worth. I believe that Thordsen Customs got a verbal okay and if that's all that the state will give, then that is okay with us as well.

Posted: 3/1/2014 5:40:43 PM EDT

[#24]

How about a specific model number just for NY? I'm taking suggestions, but let's keep it clean.

Posted: 3/2/2014 3:14:11 AM EDT

[#25]

I would be willing to pay more for quality and user friendly.

Call it the FUNY 10.

Posted: 3/2/2014 3:53:09 AM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
I would be willing to pay more for quality and user friendly.

Call it the FUNY 10.

View Quote

Not really the route we are looking to go as far as the model number is concerned, instead of AR 15, something more like NY 10. I do agree with you about paying a little more for quality and user friendly and it wouldn't be too much more. We may even offer two options.

Posted: 3/2/2014 7:36:51 AM EDT

[#27]

I personally would be interested in a complete featureless lower. It would be nice to have a few stock options as well (e.g. FRS-15, A2 with Monsterman or a Hammerhead/ACE ARUL).

Posted: 3/17/2014 4:18:31 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Hypothetically speaking of course, if a company was to produce a NY compliant lower receiver, would more people want a high end version or a basic version just to get by with being compliant until this law is overturned. Please no unnecessary comments, try to stick to the question, thanks

View Quote

OK, I'll play along. It does not need to be bottom end, but I am NOT interested in bling either or unnecessary cost just to say "quality". If you want to move these things in NY think value, price point needs to be in the ballpark with what stripped lowers are going for as well as a reflection of the quality.

It needs to be obviously fixed magazine, something along the lines of the fab 10. A removeable floor plate would be nice to facilitate unloading and cleaning. Also it woukd make it easier to block to five rounds for those that hunt with their AR and to return back to ten. Ability to feed the mag without splitting would be nice.

Posted: 3/17/2014 4:36:13 AM EDT

[#29]

I would be interested in a basic version.

How about FUAC# for the serial number?

Posted: 3/17/2014 11:28:08 AM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:

OK, I'll play along. It does not need to be bottom end, but I am NOT interested in bling either or unnecessary cost just to say "quality". If you want to move these things in NY think value, price point needs to be in the ballpark with what stripped lowers are going for as well as a reflection of the quality.

It needs to be obviously fixed magazine, something along the lines of the fab 10. A removeable floor plate would be nice to facilitate unloading and cleaning. Also it woukd make it easier to block to five rounds for those that hunt with their AR and to return back to ten. Ability to feed the mag without splitting would be nice.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Hypothetically speaking of course, if a company was to produce a NY compliant lower receiver, would more people want a high end version or a basic version just to get by with being compliant until this law is overturned. Please no unnecessary comments, try to stick to the question, thanks

OK, I'll play along. It does not need to be bottom end, but I am NOT interested in bling either or unnecessary cost just to say "quality". If you want to move these things in NY think value, price point needs to be in the ballpark with what stripped lowers are going for as well as a reflection of the quality.

It needs to be obviously fixed magazine, something along the lines of the fab 10. A removeable floor plate would be nice to facilitate unloading and cleaning. Also it woukd make it easier to block to five rounds for those that hunt with their AR and to return back to ten. Ability to feed the mag without splitting would be nice.

This is basically what we're aiming for. It will not be low end, but will not break the bank either. It will have a fixed mag, pretty much following the likes of the FAB 10. Being able to block it to five rounds (for hunting) was actually a main concern of mine as well and it will have that ability. I'm not 100% sure about the removable floor plate, but I will know more by the middle of the week. As far as splitting the mag when loading, is this something that was happening with certain mags or certain lowers? Once I actually have a sample in my hand, I will elaborate a lot more. We have settled on NY 10 for the model number. Like I said before, I should have more to tell by the middle of the week.

Posted: 3/17/2014 11:29:21 AM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
I would be interested in a basic version.

How about FUAC# for the serial number?

View Quote

Unfortunately, that is not the route we are trying to take.

Posted: 3/17/2014 3:36:58 PM EDT

[#32]

How quickly will this get done? We have four weeks from today for registration deadline.

Posted: 3/17/2014 4:21:55 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
How quickly will this get done? We have four weeks from today for registration deadline.

View Quote

We are trying to get them done asap and I know the deadline is coming fast, but I believe they will be ready before that. I should have a sample in my hands by Wednesday the latest. Believe me when I tell you, I need these just as much as everyone else. I promise, we will do our best to get them available to the public before the deadline arrives.

Frank

Posted: 3/17/2014 4:36:48 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:

We are trying to get them done asap and I know the deadline is coming fast, but I believe they will be ready before that. I should have a sample in my hands by Wednesday the latest. Believe me when I tell you, I need these just as much as everyone else. I promise, we will do our best to get them available to the public before the deadline arrives.

Frank

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
How quickly will this get done? We have four weeks from today for registration deadline.

We are trying to get them done asap and I know the deadline is coming fast, but I believe they will be ready before that. I should have a sample in my hands by Wednesday the latest. Believe me when I tell you, I need these just as much as everyone else. I promise, we will do our best to get them available to the public before the deadline arrives.

Frank

I think the best use for a fab-10 type receiver would be for AR pistols. Can you ship them as pistols with pistol buffer.

I would take 1 for sure.

Posted: 3/17/2014 5:05:26 PM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:

I think the best use for a fab-10 type receiver would be for AR pistols. Can you ship them as pistols with pistol buffer.

I would take 1 for sure.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
How quickly will this get done? We have four weeks from today for registration deadline.

We are trying to get them done asap and I know the deadline is coming fast, but I believe they will be ready before that. I should have a sample in my hands by Wednesday the latest. Believe me when I tell you, I need these just as much as everyone else. I promise, we will do our best to get them available to the public before the deadline arrives.

Frank

I think the best use for a fab-10 type receiver would be for AR pistols. Can you ship them as pistols with pistol buffer.

I would take 1 for sure.

Oh that would be grand!

Posted: 3/18/2014 4:35:25 AM EDT

[#36]

Would be nice to see these, and I'd be in for a couple.

Tag for updates!

Posted: 3/18/2014 6:58:40 AM EDT

[#37]

I vote for basic. Narrow your project scope. Target your niche.

Cheap, functional, and "compliant enough" to pass visual scrutiny should be our top priorities. If a worthwhile alternative is presented, many here will need to buy more than one copy and these will have ZERO resale value outside of NY state. They are worthless to everyone but us. Besides, a lot of us paid for "quality" the first time around and are not interested in shelling out hundreds of dollars more for a stop gap solution.

Plus, let's face the facts -- a 10rd top-loader is not a SHTF rifle. It's just not. Your solution does not need to be built for that kind of service. Main reason being that traditional lowers are not illegal to own. If someone were to buy a compliant lower for range use, there would be no reason to actually dispose of their currently-owned traditional lower. I imagine many traditional lowers will burrow up out of the woodwork when finally needed.

Posted: 3/18/2014 7:20:01 AM EDT

[#38]

Ability to feed the mag without splitting would be nice.

View Quote

As far as splitting the mag when loading, is this something that was happening with certain mags or certain lowers?

View Quote

I could be wrong, but I believe ulyranger was referring to something like the LAR7, which allows reloading the internal magazine without having to "split" the upper from the lower.

Posted: 3/18/2014 7:26:30 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
I vote for basic. Narrow your project scope. Target your niche.

Cheap, functional, and "compliant enough" to pass visual scrutiny should be our top priorities. If a worthwhile alternative is presented, many here will need to buy more than one copy and these will have ZERO resale value outside of NY state. They are worthless to everyone but us. Besides, a lot of us paid for "quality" the first time around and are not interested in shelling out hundreds of dollars more for a stop gap solution.

Plus, let's face the facts -- a 10rd top-loader is not a SHTF rifle. It's just not. Your solution does not need to be built for that kind of service. Main reason being that traditional lowers are not illegal to own. If someone were to buy a compliant lower for range use, there would be no reason to actually dispose of their currently-owned traditional lower. I imagine many traditional lowers will burrow up out of the woodwork when finally needed.

View Quote

Agree completely. We saw what happened to preban mag market when NY dried up. Keep the price point as low as possible.

Posted: 3/18/2014 9:40:06 AM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:

OK, I'll play along. It does not need to be bottom end, but I am NOT interested in bling either or unnecessary cost just to say "quality". If you want to move these things in NY think value, price point needs to be in the ballpark with what stripped lowers are going for as well as a reflection of the quality.

It needs to be obviously fixed magazine, something along the lines of the fab 10. A removeable floor plate would be nice to facilitate unloading and cleaning. Also it woukd make it easier to block to five rounds for those that hunt with their AR and to return back to ten. Ability to feed the mag without splitting would be nice.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Hypothetically speaking of course, if a company was to produce a NY compliant lower receiver, would more people want a high end version or a basic version just to get by with being compliant until this law is overturned. Please no unnecessary comments, try to stick to the question, thanks

OK, I'll play along. It does not need to be bottom end, but I am NOT interested in bling either or unnecessary cost just to say "quality". If you want to move these things in NY think value, price point needs to be in the ballpark with what stripped lowers are going for as well as a reflection of the quality.

It needs to be obviously fixed magazine, something along the lines of the fab 10. A removeable floor plate would be nice to facilitate unloading and cleaning. Also it woukd make it easier to block to five rounds for those that hunt with their AR and to return back to ten. Ability to feed the mag without splitting would be nice.

Yes, that is what I was thinking too! It does take some time to block the mag in the FAB-10 to five rounds for hunting.

Posted: 3/18/2014 12:35:09 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:

I could be wrong, but I believe ulyranger was referring to something like the LAR7, which allows reloading the internal magazine without having to "split" the upper from the lower.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Ability to feed the mag without splitting would be nice.

As far as splitting the mag when loading, is this something that was happening with certain mags or certain lowers?

I could be wrong, but I believe ulyranger was referring to something like the LAR7, which allows reloading the internal magazine without having to "split" the upper from the lower.

OOPS! I got it now.

Posted: 3/18/2014 1:34:05 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:
I vote for basic. Narrow your project scope. Target your niche.

Cheap, functional, and "compliant enough" to pass visual scrutiny should be our top priorities. If a worthwhile alternative is presented, many here will need to buy more than one copy and these will have ZERO resale value outside of NY state. They are worthless to everyone but us. Besides, a lot of us paid for "quality" the first time around and are not interested in shelling out hundreds of dollars more for a stop gap solution.

Plus, let's face the facts -- a 10rd top-loader is not a SHTF rifle. It's just not. Your solution does not need to be built for that kind of service. Main reason being that traditional lowers are not illegal to own. If someone were to buy a compliant lower for range use, there would be no reason to actually dispose of their currently-owned traditional lower. I imagine many traditional lowers will burrow up out of the woodwork when finally needed.

View Quote

We are trying to keep it as simple as possible to keep costs down and still allow loading w/out having to open the action with a fixed magazine. I am in the same boat as everyone else and have spent tons of money on things which are now illegal. The feedback I get from this website is priceless. I want everyone to know this is by no means a get rich quick scheme. We are doing this because we want everyone (including myself) to have another option when it comes to staying compliant and hopefully continue to use the rifles we love, without the fear of doing it illegally. The lower I will hopefully be receiving tomorrow is still in the R&D stage and that is why I will post pics, I need feedback. I need this to be something most will be comfortable buying and using. It may not be a SHTF rifle, but it will be a rifle you can continue to use and enjoy and one day maybe even hand it down to your son or daughter, as long as they don't change the law again. What do you feel is a fair price? I know most feel this is a waste of time, but we are still actively pursuing the proper authorities for an approval of some kind. I know we may never get it, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't try. Keep the comments coming.

Posted: 3/18/2014 4:57:25 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:

We are trying to keep it as simple as possible to keep costs down and still allow loading w/out having to open the action with a fixed magazine. I am in the same boat as everyone else and have spent tons of money on things which are now illegal. The feedback I get from this website is priceless. I want everyone to know this is by no means a get rich quick scheme. We are doing this because we want everyone (including myself) to have another option when it comes to staying compliant and hopefully continue to use the rifles we love, without the fear of doing it illegally. The lower I will hopefully be receiving tomorrow is still in the R&D stage and that is why I will post pics, I need feedback. I need this to be something most will be comfortable buying and using. It may not be a SHTF rifle, but it will be a rifle you can continue to use and enjoy and one day maybe even hand it down to your son or daughter, as long as they don't change the law again. What do you feel is a fair price? I know most feel this is a waste of time, but we are still actively pursuing the proper authorities for an approval of some kind. I know we may never get it, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't try. Keep the comments coming.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I vote for basic. Narrow your project scope. Target your niche.

Cheap, functional, and "compliant enough" to pass visual scrutiny should be our top priorities. If a worthwhile alternative is presented, many here will need to buy more than one copy and these will have ZERO resale value outside of NY state. They are worthless to everyone but us. Besides, a lot of us paid for "quality" the first time around and are not interested in shelling out hundreds of dollars more for a stop gap solution.

Plus, let's face the facts -- a 10rd top-loader is not a SHTF rifle. It's just not. Your solution does not need to be built for that kind of service. Main reason being that traditional lowers are not illegal to own. If someone were to buy a compliant lower for range use, there would be no reason to actually dispose of their currently-owned traditional lower. I imagine many traditional lowers will burrow up out of the woodwork when finally needed.

We are trying to keep it as simple as possible to keep costs down and still allow loading w/out having to open the action with a fixed magazine. I am in the same boat as everyone else and have spent tons of money on things which are now illegal. The feedback I get from this website is priceless. I want everyone to know this is by no means a get rich quick scheme. We are doing this because we want everyone (including myself) to have another option when it comes to staying compliant and hopefully continue to use the rifles we love, without the fear of doing it illegally. The lower I will hopefully be receiving tomorrow is still in the R&D stage and that is why I will post pics, I need feedback. I need this to be something most will be comfortable buying and using. It may not be a SHTF rifle, but it will be a rifle you can continue to use and enjoy and one day maybe even hand it down to your son or daughter, as long as they don't change the law again. What do you feel is a fair price? I know most feel this is a waste of time, but we are still actively pursuing the proper authorities for an approval of some kind. I know we may never get it, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't try. Keep the comments coming.

Well let's see. We can get a brand new normal lower in the $50-60 price range. But those are mass produced and no time spent to design. I feel I would be in for a lower with a blocked in magazine at around $125. Myself I would probably not pay more than $125

Posted: 3/18/2014 4:59:15 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well let's see. We can get a brand new normal lower in the $50-60 price range. But those are mass produced and no time spent to design. I feel I would be in for a lower with a blocked in magazine at around $125. Myself I would probably not pay more than $125

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I vote for basic. Narrow your project scope. Target your niche.

Cheap, functional, and "compliant enough" to pass visual scrutiny should be our top priorities. If a worthwhile alternative is presented, many here will need to buy more than one copy and these will have ZERO resale value outside of NY state. They are worthless to everyone but us. Besides, a lot of us paid for "quality" the first time around and are not interested in shelling out hundreds of dollars more for a stop gap solution.

Plus, let's face the facts -- a 10rd top-loader is not a SHTF rifle. It's just not. Your solution does not need to be built for that kind of service. Main reason being that traditional lowers are not illegal to own. If someone were to buy a compliant lower for range use, there would be no reason to actually dispose of their currently-owned traditional lower. I imagine many traditional lowers will burrow up out of the woodwork when finally needed.

We are trying to keep it as simple as possible to keep costs down and still allow loading w/out having to open the action with a fixed magazine. I am in the same boat as everyone else and have spent tons of money on things which are now illegal. The feedback I get from this website is priceless. I want everyone to know this is by no means a get rich quick scheme. We are doing this because we want everyone (including myself) to have another option when it comes to staying compliant and hopefully continue to use the rifles we love, without the fear of doing it illegally. The lower I will hopefully be receiving tomorrow is still in the R&D stage and that is why I will post pics, I need feedback. I need this to be something most will be comfortable buying and using. It may not be a SHTF rifle, but it will be a rifle you can continue to use and enjoy and one day maybe even hand it down to your son or daughter, as long as they don't change the law again. What do you feel is a fair price? I know most feel this is a waste of time, but we are still actively pursuing the proper authorities for an approval of some kind. I know we may never get it, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't try. Keep the comments coming.

Well let's see. We can get a brand new normal lower in the $50-60 price range. But those are mass produced and no time spent to design. I feel I would be in for a lower with a blocked in magazine at around $125. Myself I would probably not pay more than $125

I'm at about $100 myself

Posted: 3/19/2014 5:42:25 AM EDT

[#45]

Keeping at an affordable price point would be in everyone's best interest. I would say the $100 range would be reasonable.

Posted: 3/19/2014 8:08:23 AM EDT

[#46]

Someone needs to wake up John Browning, Eugene Stoner or John Garand.

Posted: 3/19/2014 2:13:47 PM EDT

[#47]

Okay, I finally got the demo model today, keep in mind this is still in the R&D stage and I would like as much feedback as possible. Approximately a year ago, I contacted Craig from CMS Engine Services (the original patent holder of the FAB 10) and pretty much begged him to come out with a lower just for us guys in NY. Well after months of us going back and forth and me pleading with him, he said he had some ideas and would start to work on them. Once he finally had a demo model ready, he sent it out to the BATF for a determination letter on the fixed magazine. After waiting about nine months, he finally got a return call to tell him they couldn't make a determination, because there wasn't a federal ban in place. Although they did say it would be definitely be considered a fixed mag, but other than that, it was pretty much a waste of time. As I have said before, we are currently trying to get an approval from the NYSP and I know it's never going to happen, but we at least have to try. Over the past year I have developed a great relationship with Craig and can honestly say he is genuinely in this to help us with this unconstitutional new law. I believe this new lower receiver will address many of the concerns you guys posted. It has a fixed (non-detachable) magazine which can be loaded w/out breaking open the action of the rifle. The magazine can easily be blocked for hunting as well as maintained due to the access of the floor plate. The billet receivers fit, finish and pretty much the whole design blows away the FAB 10. Don't get me wrong, the FAB 10 is great, but this is just that much better. I know price was a big concern, but we do not have an exact price as of yet. Craig has been trying different mags and has not settled on which one he will go with. Ask whatever questions you want and feel free to comment even if it's a negative one. If I don't know the answer to your question, I will hopefully have an answer by tomorrow. I really like the design and hope you guys do too and if you want additional pics, just let me know.