Product Idea(s)

[Soggy]

Thanks for taking the time to comment folks, I appreciate. A couple of responses:

if you are talking about having actual scope rings integrated (not just bases), there are a few issues that pop up immediately.

1 - ring diameter - scopes may be swapped out/upgraded and may have diff ring sizes - 30mm or 34mm etc
2 - mounting position - various scopes have different lengths, layout of adjustment knobs etc so it is useful to be able to move rings to compensate and adjust for the owner. same goes with adjusting for proper eye relief.
3 - many people want to be able to remove an optic asap on their bolt guns if they need to go back to back up irons.

i'd be giving up a number of things to essentially save the weight of 2-4 screws and a very small amount of aluminum or steel. i dont think many people would go for that...

I wasn't thinking of this replacing discrete rings, so much as the scope mounts that tie together two rings into one long base. (ie mounts from Geissele / Larue). Not sure if that was clear from my description. Looking at a variety of those types of mounts they seem to follow a pretty consistent pattern wrt to ring position and height.
https://d3cfki0l5o2ps6.cloudfront.ne...t-ddc-01_1.jpg
Not sure if this picture will show up. Here is a link:https://geissele.com/ar15-m4-super-p...ope-mount.html

80% of new scopes on that site may be 30mm, but a LOT of folks out there think that 30mm is unnecessary. 1" has been the standard since WWII, and if it was good enough for Grandpa, then it's good enough for them. Plus not everyone buys a new scope every time they buy a rifle--a lot of folks use one of the several 1" scopes they have lying around.

Okie John

That is interesting. It seems the mounts I'm referring to are more popular in the 30mm. I don't know what it would take to make one version in 30 and one in 1", or you can use inserts on the 30 to run a 1".

Regarding the thread issue you mentioned earlier: I hadn't considered that. Perhaps using replaceable threaded steel inserts in the aluminum base is the solution?

Understood. My reason for responding was to try to put some nails in the coffin of the idea that the best way to profit from an invention is to try to find someone else to license it. I would much rather see inventors approaching patenting and commercialization with more realistic commercialization plans with a higher likelihood of success.

Yeah that is a really good point, and in my original post I mentioned going that route. Now I understand why you brought it up. Excellent advice. Given this far afield of my day job I have no interest in making money off of the idea. If someone does make money off of selling these things I would be happy if they sent me a free sample, and gave a donation to the forum.

I do find it odd that there are literally hundreds of muzzle brakes, rails, scope mounts, stocks, magazines, pistol grips, but for uppers there is pretty much 'carry handle' or 'flattop' (I know there are a few exceptions, but no where near the variety of the other components I mentioned). I also agree that rails have been a boon to the industry, but I hope that doesn't mean we need to stop there in innovation.

One other thought: A typical stripped upper is ~$100. A decent mount from can run you from 200-350. What would be the cost of an upper with an integrated mount?

[SLG]

Im sorry to say, but I too think this is not a great idea.

Others already hit some of those reasons, but I'll just add that this idea would kill the qd aspect that some of us still need. It would also kill the flexibility that a pic rail provides. I can mount irons and a red dot, a scope and an offset mrds, or any other combination that I want to try.

[Soggy]

Im sorry to say, but I too think this is not a great idea.

Others already hit some of those reasons, but I'll just add that this idea would kill the qd aspect that some of us still need. It would also kill the flexibility that a pic rail provides. I can mount irons and a red dot, a scope and an offset mrds, or any other combination that I want to try.

Thanks for chiming in SLG. I get where you guys are coming from.

Well, if anybody does ever make it - you saw it here first!

[OlongJohnson]

Agreed with all the support for 1913 and other rails (Weaver is the dimensional forbearer of Pic, and is still widely used in more traditional markets).

To use a broad brush and paint the big picture the way I see it, a key to the utility and therefore popularity of the AR is its modularity, which allows the basic ingredients to be adapted to almost any conceivable purpose. Because of the standards of interchangeability, a company can produce a widget that's usable with a great number of other company's systems, rather than being limited to one or just a few. And some AR enthusiasts want to choose what they believe to be the best option for each part of their AR; no single company assembles a complete rifle that has all the best of everything for a given purpose or shooter, which means any pre-built rifle is inherently a compromise. Modularity also enables a single AR to have as many different phases as its owner chooses; a basic defensive carbine or range toy to get started can be rebuilt and repurposed as a long-range target shooter, a varmint gun, chambered for a harder-hitting round for hunting pigs/deer/bear, etc. All of which require different optics. It can also be updated as technology changes. I know a guy behind the "golden curtain" with a 30-year-old lower that was registered back in the day, enabling it to be used without a bullet button (this was before the 2016 madness). He was able to rebuild it to have all the latest technology and features.

A change that makes the system less modular and adaptable is a step backward, not forward.