[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I recently examined and tested an Arizona Regulator three position FRT (Page 2 of 8)
|
Quoted: Super safeties, freedom fingers, Atrius, heck all of them. Many Americans are feeling the freedom of burning ammo at more rapid pace. Quoted: Quoted: Let the AZ Regulators flow.  Super safeties, freedom fingers, Atrius, heck all of them. Many Americans are feeling the freedom of burning ammo at more rapid pace. Feels too good to be true |
|
Quoted: I did examine and test an Arizona Regulator three position Forced Reset Trigger system that was thoughtfully provided by a member of ARFCOM. -By way of full disclosure I have taken 01ZULU/JD to task over his "trade mark" flag. As I was a friend of the late Mike Vanderboegh. I knew it was NOT invented by 01ZULU/JD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Percenters He never did respond to my technical questions here. His demeanor was off putting and sometimes sort of obnoxious. Facts outweigh any personality issues I may have with 01ZULU/JD etc. I took a bunch of photos yesterday and still have to write everything up...However my initial finding are below. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/169738/IMG_0590_JPG-3618925.jpg That being said; The AZR is a forced reset trigger system and not a DIAS. -It appears to most likely violate Rare Breed/ABC's current patents. (ref Atrius Inter Partes Review No.: 2025–1473) can be found here: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/documents?proceedingNumber=IPR2025-01473 Pg 32 of the above: "Ex.1003, ¶61. c. FRT Mode Lastly, Fig.6B below shows safety selector 110 in FRT mode. Narrow semi- circular portion 116 of safety selector 110 allows the tail portion of trigger member 38 to move on both sides of narrow portion 116, thus, allowing trigger 38 to rotate. However, narrow portion 116 contacts tail 66 of disconnector 60, thus preventing disconnector hook 64 from engaging hammer hook 53. Ex.1001, 8:54– 65; Fig.6A. The manner in which the disconnector is disengaged is identical to that of a standard M-16 in auto mode. Ex.1003, ¶62. " It functions exactly like Rare Breeds system in that when functioning in the Forced Reset mode it omits the disconnector mechanically from the trigger system. It instead forces the trigger forward for the hammer to catch on the main sear surface between each round fired. Even in semi mode the trigger is forced forward (reset) but the disconnector is NOT mechanically omitted from the system and you must release the trigger and then squeeze the trigger again to fire each round. By way of comparison: The Super Safety on the other hand does not override or omit the function of the disconnector (and thus why mostly likely does not infringe on Rare Breeds patents). Just as 01ZULU stated on AR15.com the Arizona Regulator system can function without any disconnector and still force the reset of the trigger. I tested this with replacing the supplied M16 trigger, disconnector, and safety and installed a semi hammer, trigger, no disconnector, and semi safety selector and it functioned as a forced reset only system with the safety functioning as designed. https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-kpw7jgj6tm/images/stencil/original/image-manager/azr-15-setup-3-small.png?t=1741940303 When the AZR cam module is removed from the three position system and tested results on the FRT or Auto position of the safety were single fires with live rounds in the chamber with light primer strikes (hammer follow through malfunction) and one two round burst out of multiple attempts to make it function without the cam module. The same malfunction can be induced by removing ANY disconnector from ANY AR15 style firearm. Many FAL rifles are in circulation that have a three position safety and do the same thing put in the third position without the rest of the required parts to function normally and safely. It has a much higher rate of fire with the module installed rather than when omitted and had NO malfunctions noted. (Why would you logically removed it? What logical purpose would it serve?) Other than ATF fantastic claims in US v. Olofson aside (read that false claims), there is no obvious utility in removing an integral part of a trigger system that fires at the same RPM of a MG to induce a malfunction that will have a LOWER rate of fire...Good luck with that ATF. It would be highly recommended to not remove the module from any firearm that has the system installed to prevent any appearance of impropriety with ATF, (meaning no "multiple module ready hosts for one module). I felt you did an honest job. I can to this conclusion exactly as you described when I recieved mine and started using it. I do feel better though after hearing somebody else say exactly what I said on this board. That why would ATF try to convict you by removing the devise to try to induce a hammer follow auto event when the frt fires at a simulated full auto fire rate to begin with. Still I feel like these triggers are a short term thing. There will be a law passed at the federal level to remove these triggers from being legal. All it will take is exactly what’s happening with the Glock switches. Except the difference is .223/5.56 or .308 or any other caliber they use these with is a much more deadly caliber. 9 mm doesn’t fly through every wall in a house like a rifle round. Wait till some gang banger sends 30 rds through a house and kills a. Bunch of kids. Main difference in my words and yours is yours carry more weight. Which matters. Glad we have knowledgeable people on our side. |
|
Quoted: Dear OP... We have a FRT subforum https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Rate-of-Fire-Triggers/130/ Suggest you delete your post here in GD, and start your thread there, or request a mod to move it there. This is relevant to LOTS of people who may not read the FRT forum. To have an expert validate that the Arizona Regulator trigger is NOT too dangerously close to a Lightning Link/DIAS to be a problem is extremely good news for lots of people, and GD is the best place to disseminate that kind of information. There may be many people who were considering buying one, but were holding off because they were worried about the legality, or some of the drama in past threads. Those people should now feel comfortable buying the product, and I hope 01ZULU sells tons of them! The completely separate question of whether or not it may infringe on an existing patent is still interesting information, but is obviously much more relevant to the business that is selling these units, and not really important to the buyer who is purchasing them. If anything, that information should encourage people to buy them more quickly. |
|
Quoted: This is relevant to LOTS of people who may not read the FRT forum. To have an expert validate that the Arizona Regulator trigger is NOT too dangerously close to a Lightning Link/DIAS to be a problem is extremely good news for lots of people, and GD is the best place to disseminate that kind of information. There may be many people who were considering buying one, but were holding off because they were worried about the legality, or some of the drama in past threads. Those people should now feel comfortable buying the product, and I hope 01ZULU sells tons of them! The completely separate question of whether or not it may infringe on an existing patent is still interesting information, but is obviously much more relevant to the business that is selling these units, and not really important to the buyer who is purchasing them. If anything, that information should encourage people to buy them more quickly. My wallet's gonna hate me though. 
|
|
Quoted: This is relevant to LOTS of people who may not read the FRT forum. To have an expert validate that the Arizona Regulator trigger is NOT too dangerously close to a Lightning Link/DIAS to be a problem is extremely good news for lots of people, and GD is the best place to disseminate that kind of information. There may be many people who were considering buying one, but were holding off because they were worried about the legality, or some of the drama in past threads. Those people should now feel comfortable buying the product, and I hope 01ZULU sells tons of them! The completely separate question of whether or not it may infringe on an existing patent is still interesting information, but is obviously much more relevant to the business that is selling these units, and not really important to the buyer who is purchasing them. If anything, that information should encourage people to buy them more quickly. today was the first time I've ever beenin the ROF forum. I looked for it the other day when someone was talking about it but couldnt find it. Luckily today, someone mentioned it was under ar.15 and i was able to find it |
|
Quoted: Except the difference is .223/5.56 or .308 or any other caliber they use these with is a much more deadly caliber. 9 mm doesn’t fly through every wall in a house like a rifle round. Wait till some gang banger sends 30 rds through a house and kills a. Bunch of kids. Main difference in my words and yours is yours carry more weight. Which matters. Glad we have knowledgeable people on our side. Bro, mass is what carries bullets through barriers, spin is what causes them to fragment.A typical 556 round will tend to penetrate FEWER barriers than 9mm would. 308 is a fast 9mm but still tends to fragment due to the much higher instability induced with higher spin when hitting barriers of mixed density (like walls / furniture / cars). The Box of Truth did some great testing on this years ago - I'd have to Google to remember the details, but it's not as egregious as you'd think. |
|
Quoted: This is relevant to LOTS of people who may not read the FRT forum. To have an expert validate that the Arizona Regulator trigger is NOT too dangerously close to a Lightning Link/DIAS to be a problem is extremely good news for lots of people, and GD is the best place to disseminate that kind of information. There may be many people who were considering buying one, but were holding off because they were worried about the legality, or some of the drama in past threads. Those people should now feel comfortable buying the product, and I hope 01ZULU sells tons of them! The completely separate question of whether or not it may infringe on an existing patent is still interesting information, but is obviously much more relevant to the business that is selling these units, and not really important to the buyer who is purchasing them. If anything, that information should encourage people to buy them more quickly. Agreed. Also why I posted it in GD. My analysis was simple and based on facts. I was really worried about members here possibly being in legal peril as you stated worries of the AZR being "dangerously close to a DIAS". To reiterate two things: -Fact is, you can remove the cam from a Rare Breed trigger and get the same result as omitting the AZR cam module. Only difference is the need to remove an axis pin on the Rare Breed module in order to remove it. Since DOJ entered into a settlement with Rare Breed and stated it was good to go, it is going to be hard for ATF to pull an "Olofson". - I am sort of off put by 01ZULU/JD...I Don't care for him. |
|
Quoted: Why is Geissele "redacted" from their website? They received a letter from Geissele regarding the use of trademarked product names. It was posted at the very very very bottom of the website at one point. Sideways. ETA: still there if you scroll a bunch to the end of the internet, it's there  |
|
Quoted: This is relevant to LOTS of people who may not read the FRT forum. To have an expert validate that the Arizona Regulator trigger is NOT too dangerously close to a Lightning Link/DIAS to be a problem is extremely good news for lots of people, and GD is the best place to disseminate that kind of information. There may be many people who were considering buying one, but were holding off because they were worried about the legality, or some of the drama in past threads. Those people should now feel comfortable buying the product, and I hope 01ZULU sells tons of them! The completely separate question of whether or not it may infringe on an existing patent is still interesting information, but is obviously much more relevant to the business that is selling these units, and not really important to the buyer who is purchasing them. If anything, that information should encourage people to buy them more quickly. Thanks for bringing this aspect up and weighing in. My viewpoint is from dealing with manufacturers/retailers that are being served "cease and disist" letters from Rare Breed attorneys regarding the Hoffman Super Safeties, and other FRT's devices being manufactured and sold from various retailers. The legal side of these devices in the manufacturing and sales aspect has been nothing short of a legal shit show thanks to the RB lawyers sending out letters to ANYONE that is manufacturing/retailing the various devices.....including the Hoffman Super Safeties.....which are nothing like the RB FRT in the way it operates. At 1st glance the OP's post was asserting that the AZR was violating the RB patent. And given the overreach that RB's attorneys are currently engaged in, it sent up a red flag for me. From the OP's 1st post..... -"It appears to most likely violate Rare Breed/ABC's current patents. (ref Atrius Inter Partes Review No.: 2025–1473)" It makes me wonder if the OP is being paid/receiving compensation from RB, or the legal team to post this thread to persuade folks from buying AZR FRT's because of the sentence above. And I'm wondering if the OP will be called to testify on the behalf of RB in any future/ongoing litigation against others in the FRT/SS game. Or if his thread is merely to provide information to the community in general on the legality of possessing a FRT/SS by an individual. . |
|
Definately a cool work around to get high rates of fire. Hopefully ten million get sold so “ common usage “ Will help prevent them getting banned, if congress etc ever get around to doing it. Seems they prefer to let agencies make laws now so they don’t have to take a stance on anything officially anymore. I can definitely see myself buying a few of these. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for bringing this aspect up and weighing in. My viewpoint is from dealing with manufacturers/retailers that are being served "cease and disist" letters from Rare Breed attorneys regarding the Hoffman Super Safeties, and other FRT's devices being manufactured and sold from various retailers. The legal side of these devices in the manufacturing and sales aspect has been nothing short of a legal shit show thanks to the RB lawyers sending out letters to ANYONE that is manufacturing/retailing the various devices.....including the Hoffman Super Safeties.....which are nothing like the RB FRT in the way it operates. At 1st glance the OP's post was asserting that the AZR was violating the RB patent. And given the overreach that RB's attorneys are currently engaged in, it sent up a red flag for me. From the OP's 1st post..... -"It appears to most likely violate Rare Breed/ABC's current patents. (ref Atrius Inter Partes Review No.: 2025–1473)" It makes me wonder if the OP is being paid/receiving compensation from RB, or the legal team to post this thread to persuade folks from buying AZR FRT's because of the sentence above. And I'm wondering if the OP will be called to testify on the behalf of RB in any future/ongoing litigation against others in the FRT/SS game. Or if his thread is merely to provide information to the community in general on the legality of possessing a FRT/SS by an individual. . I think both Rare Breed and AZR are acting like assholes and have NO affiliation with either party. Go to my original post and the link to the document from the US patent office. I am going by the document and have posted illustrations from that document. It is the primary source of the data provided about the appearance of patent infringement. I am not a patent attorney. I am not a patent expert. I can however read official documents and understand mechanical drawings. I stated it "appears" because both devices operate identically. Go read the document for yourself. The original patent Blakely (723) even used a separate cam module as the AZR.  The later patent Blakely (247) was a single module and depresses an M16 style disconnector same as the AZR three position version:  This thread is merely to provide information to the community in general on the legality of possessing a FRT/SS by an individual. |
|
Quoted: They received a letter from Geissele regarding the use of trademarked product names. It was posted at the very very very bottom of the website at one point. Sideways. ETA: still there if you scroll a bunch to the end of the internet, it's there https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-kpw7jgj6tm/images/stencil/original/image-manager/cease-and-desist-recieved-07-21-2025.jpeg?t=1753213680 Quoted: Quoted: Why is Geissele "redacted" from their website? They received a letter from Geissele regarding the use of trademarked product names. It was posted at the very very very bottom of the website at one point. Sideways. ETA: still there if you scroll a bunch to the end of the internet, it's there https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-kpw7jgj6tm/images/stencil/original/image-manager/cease-and-desist-recieved-07-21-2025.jpeg?t=1753213680 |
| Sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm not sure if you answered it and I'm just too slow to recognize it, but will the three position AZR only work with the included Mil Spec trigger or can it work with say, the Geissele SSA like the original version of the AZR does? |
|
Quoted: Does this analysis change your opinion on the device? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just want to know if OP's opinion is authoritative. I hope it is, but I don't know him. I really want the 3 position AZR to be kosher. Len Savage (OP) is one of the most authoritative technical firearms experts in the country. He is the guy you hire as the expert in federal court cases. Also, thanks Len! Does this analysis change your opinion on the device? BLUF: Len and I are in agreement for the most part at this point on the AZR 3 pos- excepting that I disagree on a technicality re:the AZR 3 position violating RBs patent. I don't think the AZR 3 position violates RBs patent because I don't believe RBs patent is valid. Long version: My team also obtained one of these devices recently and concluded that while having a rifle setup for this in an otherwise factory setup is OK, having a rifle setup for this without the device in could easily ( Len referenced Olofson, take a look at it) result in ATF playing games to get you on a MG charge. We could get much more than two rounds in succession with the setup in question, with the device removed, when using soft primers and an increased strength recoil spring. The danger here is that if ATF confiscates a rifle from you that doesn't have the device itself installed and does have the other pieces, you can be certain that if they want to get you they will do exactly that- they will argue (likely successfully) that it is "readily convertible" because it doesn't require tools to pop the rear takedown pin and add the stronger buffer spring. I don't think many, if anyone, in the industry would have been so concerned if 01Zulu had not been so evasive in answering legitimate questions from experts and consumers alike. |
This is GD. We are always upset. If someone started a thread, giving away free puppies, someone would get upset.  Len, I am questioning your thoughts that AZR may be infringing on RB's patent. The piece you point to operates exactly like Eugene Stoner's original patent. Additionally, AZR is using an M16 selector. I can't see how a 60 year old, previously patented design would infringe on a new patent from last year. |
|
Quoted: I think both Rare Breed and AZR are acting like assholes and have NO affiliation with either party. Go to my original post and the link to the document from the US patent office. I am going by the document and have posted illustrations from that document. It is the primary source of the data provided about the appearance of patent infringement. I am not a patent attorney. I am not a patent expert. I can however read official documents and understand mechanical drawings. I stated it "appears" because both devices operate identically. Go read the document for yourself. This thread is merely to provide information to the community in general on the legality of possessing a FRT/SS by an individual. Thank you for the clarification on all this. I'll put down the pitchfork.....  . |
|
Quoted: This is GD. We are always upset. If someone started a thread, giving away free puppies, someone would get upset. Len, I am questioning your thoughts that AZR may be infringing on RB's patent. The piece you point to operates exactly like Eugene Stoner's original patent. Additionally, AZR is using an M16 selector. I can't see how a 60 year old, previously patented design would infringe on a new patent from last year. That seems like a patent attorney discussion. |
|
Quoted: Yep, I couldn't care less about patent issues myself. I do find it odd that RB/ABC have not sent JD a CD letter or filed a suit since they seem to have targeted damn near if not every other FRT manufacturer... Quoted: Quoted: That seems like a patent attorney discussion. I do find it odd that RB/ABC have not sent JD a CD letter or filed a suit since they seem to have targeted damn near if not every other FRT manufacturer... I doubt JD will tell us if he gets a CD letter. I fully expect Stamboulieh will give us an update if (probably when) RB files a suit against AZR, tho. eta: Then again, he's been pretty loud about everything else so... yeah, its odd. |
|
Quoted: I doubt JD will tell us if he gets a CD letter. I fully expect Stamboulieh will give us an update if (probably when) RB files a suit against AZR, tho. eta: Then again, he's been pretty loud about everything else so... yeah, its odd.
|
|
Quoted: We need to have a talk about your videography skills. Quoted: We need to have a talk about your videography skills. My videographer was in school. |
|
Quoted: Could be. With the way JD has handled other issues, I figured he'd post it ASAP on his site...maybe I just haven't scrolled far enough Quoted: Quoted: I doubt JD will tell us if he gets a CD letter. I fully expect Stamboulieh will give us an update if (probably when) RB files a suit against AZR, tho. eta: Then again, he's been pretty loud about everything else so... yeah, its odd. lol, god damn. |
|
Quoted: Bro, mass is what carries bullets through barriers, spin is what causes them to fragment.A typical 556 round will tend to penetrate FEWER barriers than 9mm would. 308 is a fast 9mm but still tends to fragment due to the much higher instability induced with higher spin when hitting barriers of mixed density (like walls / furniture / cars). The Box of Truth did some great testing on this years ago - I'd have to Google to remember the details, but it's not as egregious as you'd think. Quoted: Quoted: Except the difference is .223/5.56 or .308 or any other caliber they use these with is a much more deadly caliber. 9 mm doesn’t fly through every wall in a house like a rifle round. Wait till some gang banger sends 30 rds through a house and kills a. Bunch of kids. Main difference in my words and yours is yours carry more weight. Which matters. Glad we have knowledgeable people on our side. Bro, mass is what carries bullets through barriers, spin is what causes them to fragment.A typical 556 round will tend to penetrate FEWER barriers than 9mm would. 308 is a fast 9mm but still tends to fragment due to the much higher instability induced with higher spin when hitting barriers of mixed density (like walls / furniture / cars). The Box of Truth did some great testing on this years ago - I'd have to Google to remember the details, but it's not as egregious as you'd think. This - the TLDR is that anything that gets adequate penetration of bad guy will go all the way through a drywall house and that 9mm and 00 penetrate more walls than 5.56m. |
|
Quoted: lol, god damn. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I doubt JD will tell us if he gets a CD letter. I fully expect Stamboulieh will give us an update if (probably when) RB files a suit against AZR, tho. eta: Then again, he's been pretty loud about everything else so... yeah, its odd. lol, god damn. It’s worth the doom scroll though…you’ll eventually stumble upon some GD drama. Once again proving ARF is everywhere lol. Oh and if JD is watching this thread…I’ll gladly fix the grammar errors throughout the website in exchange for an AZR or two.
|
|
Quoted: BLUF: Len and I are in agreement for the most part at this point on the AZR 3 pos- excepting that I disagree on a technicality re:the AZR 3 position violating RBs patent. I don't think the AZR 3 position violates RBs patent because I don't believe RBs patent is valid... I don't think many, if anyone, in the industry would have been so concerned if 01Zulu had not been so evasive in answering legitimate questions from experts and consumers alike. Ben, you bring up a good point and one I should respond to: I have NO opinion as to the validity of the Rare Breed patents. In fact I am quoting from the Atrius Review Petition asking the US patent office to void the Rare Breed patent. (Nobody ever checks out the reference material that is linked). There is great info and data there. Rare Breed/ABC currently holds a patent. I am stating that both the Rare Breeds FRT and AZR operate mechanically the same way. If they have a valid patent it "appears" to infringe upon it. I say let the patent office respond to the petition, we will have a good idea of what is valid or not at that point...
|
