Reloading is key . I have M856 tracer reloads that cost under 9 cents each. $.052 per projectile, $.015 per primer, $.02 per charge of powder

So...  yesterday was my birthday and my g/f bought me a GoPro Hero 2.  HOPEFULLY
the next video will have my GoPro mounted to my AR.

Also, you can only reload these things so many times.
I am going to start having a brass catcher either stand next to me with
a 5 gallon bucket, or just buy one lol.  The ground where I shoot
looks like it is made of brass.

Here is a video testing out the GoPro with my bump fire stock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJjI8quqzcA&feature=youtu.be

thATS awesome !  congrats on saving money and blowing a lot of money at the same time

Doesn't this grip scream "Use me for a home-made bump stock"? It has an embedded attachment point, a trigger guard that won't pinch your finger, it seems to be a natural. Only thing that may cause trouble is that it already sits back further, so adding an extended finger shelf may put it too far out of reach? Does that make sense?

P.S. I hope stickman doesn't mind me using his pic.......buy this grip from Rainer Arms

My new lower should be coming in in the next few days.  I went ahead and ordered a stripped
Zombie lower from Spikes Tactical and a Spikes LPK.  As soon as it comes in I will be updating this
thread regularly until finished.

Don't know if this would work or not,but what if you cut down a buffer spring and put it between the buffer tube and the stock to give it forward tension.Then you wouldn't have to keep forward pressure with your hand on the rail.Let the guns recoil do all the work.

Don't do this.  ATF will come looking for you

Bravo """ What a Great project"

Bravo """ What a Great project"

Spring = Bad in the eyes of ATF

RED BULL made me do it.LOL ALCOHOL,TOBACCO AND FIREARMS should be a corner store not a government agency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That damn Red BULL!

Why would putting a spring between the RE stock have the ATF come looking for him. Knoxxs already had a sprung stuck to tame heavy kickers. It is still one bang for one pull.

LINK

Yep, this is what I'm waiting for.

The way I understand about patents is that as long as it is 30% different then it is fair game.

Just like all the different chemicals that kill weeds.

Look at all the lowers that are made for AR's.

A patent is to develop a certain product that is made a certain way and performs a certain way. Many ideas were inspired by other patents.

Look at all the adjustable stocks their are that have patent pending or has a patent on it. I"m sure everyone has a patent but look at all the different stocks. Because each one is a little different than the other.

So no patent infringment.

That's just my personal take on it.

Anyone know of a good link for a DIY concerning capturing the selector detent??? TIA!

http://3gn.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=4&t=459744

I just finalized this modification ^^^, and it works great. Thank you again brodband8. Now to buy 99 more lowers, so I can use up all the extra hardware.

For the safety you might want to consider the BAD-ASS, the short levers should clear the pistol grip and not interfere but retain functionality.  45 degree lever would just be plain cool!  

~Augee

Yep, I have some ^^^ in my cart from an online retailer. I'll be getting two sets along with a BUNCH of other goodies. I'm doing like the OP and building a second lower. Just have to build up some more funds for this venture before moving forward.

Just spent 45 minutes reading this whole thread lol, time well spent. Congrats on the do it yourself, functional hoop-a-joob. I can only imagine your buddies are going to be begging you to rig them up one just like yours haha.

My understand is that one cannot patent an "idea". That would be like someone inventing the first cell phone and prohibiting anyone else from creating a cell phone.  Now, the internal workings of that cell phone could most certainly be patented, but not the implementation of a wireless, hand-held communications device that operates on a network of antennae and satellites.

Two (acceptably) different devices that perform the same function does not amount to a patent infringement, as far as I understand it...which admittedly, is not all that far.

Cool device, OP.  Looks fun.  Also looks like a black hole for ammo.  

Not to hijack but here is what I came up with, works great for .223 and have yet to test with my .45acp



Used 1/2" x 1/4" aluminum flat bar about 7" long. And kydex sheet screwed into the bar. This stock can be removed and used on my other ARs easily.

Also, placed a thumb screw (1 1/2" long) on a blind t-nut to hold the 6 point stock lever in the up position.

I went cheap and bought a PTS stock $30, and had the aluminum bar, so total was about $45!

Bravo......I was thinking of something that would slide around the pistol gripp too, but haven't came up with anything.

I tried to make a kydex that went the full length of the grip but couldnt get it to work comfortably. Just went with the top half about a 2 1/2" x 8" kydex sheet then trimmed it down once it was formed to the grip and flat bar.

Hardest part wat filing down the 6 position pin, which sticks down and hits the top of the aluminum flat bar. I also added a lock washer between the flat bar and stock to give a little gap.

I'll take one!  You know, when you get some time..  Very nice work man

You Da Man

YaMaMa, cool idea.  You think you can put some videos up of it working?

Also, my brother hadn't got a chance to test out the one I made, so we went out the usual spot to test.

About 30 minutes in, I turned around and two squad cars pulled up because they had reports of full auto fire.

One of the officers had a H&K UMP .45, which I immediately recognized and began to talk about.  I noticed he had an
EoTech 552 and I started to rattle off about the one I had.  They were pretty cool about it, and didn't ask to search anything
which was surprising.  

I tried to explain the concept of bump firing, and that we didn't posses any NFA items, other than a suppressor but they didn't seem
to mind too much.

I only wish I had it on video.

Eta: trying to figure out how to post video from photobucket

I think this will work.... Bump fire vid here

Btw the noise at the end is my sister flipping out over all the brass that hit her!

cool man, it works!  How comfortable is it?

Only put 3 mags down range, no finger pinch. My sister even shot it with no problem.

The only difference I can see is the aluminum rod makes the grip thicker. But am working in another grip concept to fix that.

Ben

Very cool man.

On a side note, here are some pics of my BCM with my SPR/M4

Nice stick man!

How does the bumb fire sound with the suppressor?

Haven't done it yet, the blow back is pretty unbearable, even with an adams arms piston.

If you copy cat something that is already legal by BATF standards you should be in the clear, I remember Cavalry Arms used to sell their own version of muzzle brake, they did not designed, just copied one that Wilson made and it was legal for them to sell. I like what you did and do not worry about other people opinion, you are not selling it and  if you like it that is all that counts.

My sister sent me the vid of her shooting HERE . Only gave her 10 rounds, she did more of a burst bump fire.

Has the OP uploaded a new video of his latest creation yet? I would like to see how the new stock works

Yep,  

looks great now I just need a detailed list and instructions so I can build my own lol. Some peoples ingenuity is mind blowing BTW looks great and works just as good as the 350.00 version.

I no longer have a dog in the race since I sold my bumpfire stocks patent. But since I invented it in 1996 and patented it in 2000, it would be nice if people would at least give me
credit for being the first person to patent the very first bumpfiring stocks that were DEDICATED and built purposely for bumpfiring. Since I sold my patent and no longer have an interest in who infringes on my FORMER patent, now I just smile when I see people saying "Hey! Look what I came up". Uh huh. Sure you did.

But good luck to ignorant people who MAY get their tails sued off (not by me, I sold my patent remember?) because they ignorantly think just because they are making one for their own use and have no intention to sell that they are legally okay. Not so. Check out the below section on ...."Whoever without authority makes......" in the below patent infringement law that is taken straight from the U.S. patent office website.

Good luck with "But I only MADE it for my own use". No longer any skin off my nose since I sold my patent. I  now just chuckle and get tickled when I see the ignorance. Also look at the section of "Whoever actively induces infringement.....". That means induces others to infringe by posting how they made their infringing stock and thus encourages others to do the same. You may be too small time for whoever owns a patent to spend the money to go after, but the point is.....THEY CAN.

Don't flame me, I'm only the messenger showing you the law and I don't have a dog in the race anymore since I sold out my patent. I'm just posting for the benefit of those who do not know the law, here's the law to inform those ignorant of it and who think....."I can legally make one for my own use, that isn't illegal". Uh huh. Read the below law.

It's one thing to make one and keep your mouth shut about it. But is it worth the risk just to show everyone what you made to stroke your ego? But by all means, make as many as you want. Post all about them at firearm sites everywhere. Then when you come to the attention to a company who owns a patent who has deep pockets.....best of luck to you.



U S P T O Seal [home]United States Patent and Trademark Office
Home|Site Index|Search|FAQ|Glossary|Guides|Contacts|eBusiness|eBiz alerts|News|Help
PATENTS  
Patents > Search Collections > MPEP > 35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. - Patent Laws

Go to MPEP - Table of Contents


   browse before
   35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. - Patent Laws

   35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

   (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

   (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

   (c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.

   (d) No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of his having done one or more of the following: (1) derived revenue from acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (2) licensed or authorized another to perform acts which if performed without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (3) sought to enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory infringement; (4) refused to license or use any rights to the patent; or (5) conditioned the license of any rights to the patent or the sale of the patented product on the acquisition of a license to rights in another patent or purchase of a separate product, unless, in view of the circumstances, the patent owner has market power in the relevant market for the patent or patented product on which the license or sale is conditioned.

   (e)

   (1) It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention (other than a new animal drug or veterinary biological product (as those terms are used in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Act of March 4, 1913) which is primarily manufactured using recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, hybridoma technology, or other processes involving site specific genetic manipulation techniques) solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.

   (2) It shall be an act of infringement to submit -

   (A) an application under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or described in section 505(b)(2) of such Act for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, or

   (B) an application under section 512 of such Act or under the Act of March 4, 1913 (21 U.S.C. 151 - 158) for a drug or veterinary biological product which is not primarily manufactured using recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, hybridoma technology, or other processes involving site specific genetic manipulation techniques and which is claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a drug or veterinary biological product claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent before the expiration of such patent.

   (3) In any action for patent infringement brought under this section, no injunctive or other relief may be granted which would prohibit the making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States or importing into the United States of a patented invention under paragraph (1).

   (4) For an act of infringement described in paragraph (2)-

   (A) the court shall order the effective date of any approval of the drug or veterinary biological product involved in the infringement to be a date which is not earlier than the date of the expiration of the patent which has been infringed,

   (B) injunctive relief may be granted against an infringer to prevent the commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the United States or importation into the United States of an approved drug or veterinary biological product, and

   (C) damages or other monetary relief may be awarded against an infringer only if there has been commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the United States or importation into the United States of an approved drug or veterinary biological product. The remedies prescribed by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) are the only remedies which may be granted by a court for an act of infringement described in paragraph (2), except that a court may award attorney fees under section 285.

   (5) Where a person has filed an application described in paragraph (2) that includes a certification under subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) or (j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355), and neither the owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification nor the holder of the approved application under subsection (b) of such section for the drug that is claimed by the patent or a use of which is claimed by the patent brought an action for infringement of such patent before the expiration of 45 days after the date on which the notice given under subsection (b)(3) or (j)(2)(B) of such section was received, the courts of the United States shall, to the extent consistent with the Constitution, have subject matter jurisdiction in any action brought by such person under section 2201 of title 28 for a declaratory judgment that such patent is invalid or not infringed.

   (f)

   (1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

   (2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

   (g) Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent. In an action for infringement of a process patent, no remedy may be granted for infringement on account of the noncommercial use or retail sale of a product unless there is no adequate remedy under this title for infringement on account of the importation or other use, offer to sell, or sale of that product. A product which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after -

   (1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or

   (2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.

   (h) As used in this section, the term "whoever" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

   (i) As used in this section, an "offer for sale" or an "offer to sell" by a person other than the patentee or any assignee of the patentee, is that in which the sale will occur before the expiration of the term of the patent.

   (Subsection (e) added Sept. 24, 1984, Public Law 98-417, sec. 202, 98 Stat. 1603.)

   (Subsection (f) added Nov. 8, 1984, Public Law 98-622, sec. 101(a), 98 Stat. 3383.)

   (Subsection (g) added Aug. 23, 1988, Public Law 100-418, sec. 9003, 102 Stat. 1564.)

   (Subsection (e) amended Nov. 16, 1988, Public Law 100-670, sec. 201(i), 102 Stat. 3988.)

   (Subsection (d) amended Nov. 19, 1988, Public Law 100-703, sec. 201, 102 Stat. 4676.)

   (Subsection (h) added Oct. 28, 1992, Public Law 102-560, sec. 2(a)(1), 106 Stat. 4230.)

   (Subsections (a), (c), (e), and (g) amended Dec. 8, 1994, Public Law 103-465, sec. 533(a), 108 Stat. 4988.)

   (Subsection (i) added Dec. 8, 1994, Public Law 103-465, sec. 533(a), 108 Stat. 4988.)

   (Subsection (e)(5) added Dec. 8, 2003, Public Law 108-173, sec. 1101(d), 117 Stat. 2457.)

bill akins "in my opinion " if u spent as much time getting people on your side as u do trying toforce them to buy your product thru threat and intimidation u would be a well liked man....iinstead of the "less than well liked" man u are.
..

 

When using the Kydex wrap-around method, do you see any issues with the grip getting too big as you slide back to fire?

Also, as far as the patent stuff goes, the devil is in the details. What damages could a patent holder get you for when you make your own, well they can likely just charge you for the amount that you would have bought the original item. At max, they could make you buy three. So long as you are not selling or profiting, it is not worth their time to pursue unless they are nuts.

You cannot be accused of "inducing" others to build one unless you are actively asking them to do so. So long as you are just sharing your experiences for informational purposes, you are likely clear.

Just posting the law without the remedies is typical scare tactics.

I'm chuckling at the ignorance again. Especially the ignorance of your "opinion" above.
Did you not comprehend what I wrote when I said "I no longer have a dog in the race since I sold my patent"?
Obviously you didn't or else you wouldn't be accusing me of "threatening or intimidating" people to try to "force" them to buy "my product".

Because since I sold my patent and I am not a member of the corp who is selling what they are manufacturing based on my former patent,
then I cannot be "threatening" nor "intimidating" anyone to buy "my product" because it isn't MY product. It is THEIR product since I sold out my patent to them.

So everything you just said above is incorrect, nonfactual and said out of ignorance because you failed to comprehend what I wrote in my previous post.

What we have here is an individual ignorant of the facts and patent law who also cannot comprehend what he reads and who just wants to flame me simply because I posted
what the law says regarding someone making one even for their own use is infringement and how inducing others to infringe is also infringement. He likes seeing people infringe on others patents (not my patent, I sold my patent remember? It belongs to someone else now. But badassjon ignored that I said that before) and badassjon does not like it when someone posts the law showing that even making one for own use is an infringement. Clearly that ignorance and ignoring of what I actually wrote would make you less "than well liked" in the eyes of your peers here badassjon. Members here do not respect people who ignore what others actually wrote, then who try to twist what others wrote into something they did not write, and then ad hominem attack the other person (accusing me of being "less than well liked") because their argument makes no sense, ignores the facts, and tries to accuse someone of doing something they aren't.....as in accusing me of "threatening, intimidating and trying to force" people into buying a "product" of a company when I am not a part owner of that product and not even a member of that company.

I SOLD MY PATENT, I AM NOT A SHAREHOLDING MEMBER OF THE COMPANY WHO SELLS BUMPFIRE STOCKS BASED UPON MY PATENT. IT IS NOT MY PRODUCT IT IS THEIRS.
I made that very clear in my previous post.

Try comprehending what you read next time and put brain in gear before putting mouth in motion. Perhaps then...."u would be a well liked man....instead of the "less than well liked" man u are."


By the way, thanks for not even giving me credit for being the first person who invented (1996) and patented (2000) a dedicated method and apparatus rifle stock specifically for bumpfiring. It is because of my previous work in the field that discussions and threads regarding this both here and at other sites are even taking place.


.

i don't think the op is even in copyright infringement even if he were to manufacture and sell these they are clearly an improvement over the slide fire as they are far less ugly