AR15/M16 .22 upper using 10-22 mags

[blackdogmachine]

A friend of mine developed a AR15/M16 upper that uses 10-22 mags out the side and ejects out the bottom. The bolt has rollers and adjustable sear trip.
The ATF has ruled the upper a firearm and it has a full patent. The first production uppers will be ready for sale in a few weeks. He kept this quiet until he got the ATF letter and patent done. It is called the "ROGAR 15"
made by RW BAIN firearms LLC. in Emmett Idaho. We did 750 round end to end mag dumps today and it ran great. I will post a U tube video in a bit.

[blackdogmachine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfoMUNPOyYg

[BeachinBeemer]

will it work with a Lightning Link?...Beemer

[blackdogmachine]

we didnt test it with a link but I would have to think no because the bolt uses the lower trip, we did test DIAS and pin trip lowers.

[rocko]

Given the recent ruling by the ATF on the BRP XMG upper, using this with a RR, LL, or RDIAS would almost certainly be classified as creating a new, post sample, MG - i.e., bad juju. Seems to be that upper = non-firearm, OK, upper=firearm, no go.

http://www.brpguns.com/xmg.htm

[Ge-mini-gun]

Any idea on cost?

[blackdogmachine]

It cant be a machine gun because it needs the M16 lower fire control to run it. It only got ruled a firearm because the mag will lock onto it. Cost is $800 retail.

[rocko]

It cant be a machine gun because it needs the M16 lower fire control to run it. It only got ruled a firearm because the mag will lock onto it. Cost is $800 retail.

The XMG upper referenced was also ruled a firearm for the same reason - it contains the feed mech. When on a semi AR-15 received, it will function in semi only. When used with an RR or RDIAS, it would function correctly in full auto. For years people bought and used them on RR's or with an RDIAS without a further thought, but ATF shut that down early this year.

I know that applying logic to any decision by the ATF might be folly, but from a functional perspective, they are nearly the same. I.e., both "uppers" are considered firearms.

BRP neglected to publish the full letter, but the notice on their site (linked above) is below. This was all over various boards (including here) when announced, the general consensus being that the differing factor here is the status of the "upper" as a firearm. The registered part essentially becomes a "conversion device" for the new firearm (the upper) and the ATF only permits conversion devices to be used on the firearms they are originally intended for - i.e., you can't try to use an AR RDIAS in a completely different family of gun.

UPDATE 1/3/2009: We were recently notified by BATFE in a letter dated 12/23/08 that the XMG upper receiver assembly may only be used with semiautomatic lower receivers unless registered on an ATF Form 2 as a dealer sales sample by a licensed manufacturer and Special Occupational Taxpayer. We're seeking clarification on this issue and direction on possible modifications to the existing design. If you have any questions regarding this ruling, please contact BRP CORP at 301-807-5234.

[Vegas SMG]

It cant be a machine gun because it needs the M16 lower fire control to run it.

That sounds exactly like BRP Corporation's XMG beltfed MG34 upper.

OK, so you take a title one firearm, (ROGAR 15), which is what's being sold, you add a device, in this case a M-16 lower, to make the title one gun function as a full auto weapon. You've just created a post sample machine gun from the ROGAR 15. Unfortunately, the ROBAR 15 is a gun in and of itself.

While I don't agree with this ruling, that certainly seems to be BATF's new logic with the BRP upper which is itself registered as a title one weapon...

I hope I'm wrong.

Please read this thread.

http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41910

_________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

[blackdogmachine]

Ya but this upper is not a machine gun unless used on a M16 lower, the XMG upper was a machine gun before it was pinned on the lower. The upper cant be fired unless pinned on to a lower, So now what? What about the subcal uppers for the Macs, same damn thing if you ask me.

[Mike26038]

You gotta remember something BDM, the ATF is run by rabid anti gunners, that try to rule guns out of existance.

[rocko]

Ya but this upper is not a machine gun unless used on a M16 lower, the XMG upper was a machine gun before it was pinned on the lower. The upper cant be fired unless pinned on to a lower, So now what? What about the subcal uppers for the Macs, same damn thing if you ask me.

No it isn't. The BRP XMG is a title 1 firearm (not a machine gun), and can be used legally without issue with an AR-15 lower. As for the Fleming .22 conversions - they've, so far, escaped being classified as a firearm, which appears to be the differentiating factor in the issue with the ATF. I think the key issue is that if you want to use it legally on a transferable lower (or with a transferable conversion device), it needs to be a non-firearm.

[blackdogmachine]

Ya I think he will have to seek further ruling on it.

[Energizer]

A friend of mine developed a AR15/M16 upper that uses 10-22 mags out the side and ejects out the bottom. The bolt has rollers and adjustable sear trip.
The ATF has ruled the upper a firearm and it has a full patent. The first production uppers will be ready for sale in a few weeks. He kept this quiet until he got the ATF letter and patent done. It is called the "ROGAR 15"
made by RW BAIN firearms LLC. in Emmett Idaho. We did 750 round end to end mag dumps today and it ran great. I will post a U tube video in a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfoMUNPOyYg

Looks like it jammed a lot. This reminds me of the M10 .22LR upper that takes Ruger mags.

[Energizer]

That sounds exactly like BRP Corporation's XMG beltfed MG34 upper.

OK, so you take a title one firearm, (ROGAR 15), which is what's being sold, you add a device, in this case a M-16 lower, to make the title one gun function as a full auto weapon. You've just created a post sample machine gun from the ROGAR 15. Unfortunately, the ROBAR 15 is a gun in and of itself.

While I don't agree with this ruling, that certainly seems to be BATF's new logic with the BRP upper which is itself registered as a title one weapon...

I hope I'm wrong.

Please read this thread.

http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41910

So basically, that video shooting full auto could be considered creation of a post-86 machine gun. Now, is he a manufacturer/SOT?

[blackdogmachine]

Yes he is a FFL07/02 SOT. It might of had a few hickups but I dont think my Ciener kit can run 750 rounds that fast with that few of hickups, if you look those were start and stop bursts not just mag dumps. All the trouble with full auto is in the start and stop, anybody can just do a mag dump. The letter from ATF says the upper is a title 1 firearm for use on a AR15/M16 rifle.

[SecondAmend]

OP,

Pardon my ignorance - what is a full patent? I am familiar with utility patents, design patents, and plant patents, but not full patents. I am also familiar with provisional applications.

What is the patent number?

[blackdogmachine]

What I meant was a real patent, not just pending. I dont know what the exact type it is. I can post more info as I get it, this was a project he started a year ago and kept it quiet until the patent was issued. Just found out, Its a provisional patent.

[SecondAmend]

With all due respect, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the U.S. patent system.


From:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...ex.html#patent


Provisional Application for a Patent

Since June 8, 1995, the USPTO has offered inventors the option of filing a provisional application for patent which was designed to provide a lower cost first patent filing in the United States and to give U.S. applicants parity with foreign applicants. Claims and oath or declaration are NOT required for a provisional application. Provisional application provides the means to establish an early effective filing date in a patent application and permits the term “Patent Pending” to be applied in connection with the invention. Provisional applications may not be filed for design inventions.

The filing date of a provisional application is the date on which a written description of the invention, and drawings if necessary, are received in the USPTO. To be complete, a provisional application must also include the filing fee, and a cover sheet specifying that the application is a provisional application for patent. The applicant would then have up to 12 months to file a non-provisional application for patent as described above. The claimed subject matter in the later filed non-provisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application if it has support in the provisional application. If a provisional application is not filed in English, and a non-provisional application is filed claiming benefit to the provisional application, a translation of the provisional application will be required. See title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.78(a)(5).

Provisional applications are NOT examined on their merits. A provisional application will become abandoned by the operation of law 12 months from its filing date. The 12-month pendency for a provisional application is not counted toward the 20-year term of a patent granted on a subsequently filed non-provisional application which claims benefit of the filing date of the provisional application.

A surcharge is required for filing the basic filing fee or the cover sheet on a date later than the filing of the provisional application.



I wish all of those involved the best of luck with their endeavors.

[csmc]

What kind of .22 magazines are those in the video?