Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
remember when Spike Lee tried to sue Spike TV!
is that guy an asswipe or what?
remember when Spike Lee tried to sue Spike TV!
is that guy an asswipe or what?
- Thread starter RWSGunsmithing
- Start date
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Well screw Armalite.
How does KAC feel about nomenclature with the number 25? like in their SR-25. Sounds better anyways. Being that systems now are far superior than the antiquated original AR-10. Majority of the manufactures use either proprietary patterns or DPMS pattern receivers/mags. I would love to see the 308 AR platform with a "milspec" standardization like the AR-15.
I wonder if we can get the industry to accept a standard 308 pattern and name excluding Armalite. Let them keep the silly AR-10!
SR-25, RWS-25, GAP-25, LMT-25, OBR-25, POF-25. Has a ring to it
Well screw Armalite.
How does KAC feel about nomenclature with the number 25? like in their SR-25. Sounds better anyways. Being that systems now are far superior than the antiquated original AR-10. Majority of the manufactures use either proprietary patterns or DPMS pattern receivers/mags. I would love to see the 308 AR platform with a "milspec" standardization like the AR-15.
I wonder if we can get the industry to accept a standard 308 pattern and name excluding Armalite. Let them keep the silly AR-10!
SR-25, RWS-25, GAP-25, LMT-25, OBR-25, POF-25. Has a ring to it
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
I also say this because the platform is not only a 308 cal system. How many other calibers are there? Just to name a few.
308, 260, 6mm CM, 6.5mm CM, 300 WSM, 243.
I also say this because the platform is not only a 308 cal system. How many other calibers are there? Just to name a few.
308, 260, 6mm CM, 6.5mm CM, 300 WSM, 243.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
I stand corrected.
My wife, who is a marketing manager, said no matter when the product was 'trademarked' the person/corp owning the trademark can sue for exclusive rights. Point in fact. She trademarked a logo that had been in use for 35 years prior to her trademarking it by a little coffee shop. She trademarked it because the longtime business, sued another business (a record store) who used the term, "Down in the Valley". Anyhow, the wife checked it out, it wasn't trademarked, so she trademarked it for her company. Then let the coffee shop know they might want to change their name. FWIW, it came around to her by chance that the lawsuit came about between the other two stores. She was just first on the draw.
So, while I have issues with Armalite and Colt trademarking government nomenclature, until someone sues who is willing to dump out the money in court, they will continue to own those trademarks and enforce them if they so choose.
I stand corrected.
My wife, who is a marketing manager, said no matter when the product was 'trademarked' the person/corp owning the trademark can sue for exclusive rights. Point in fact. She trademarked a logo that had been in use for 35 years prior to her trademarking it by a little coffee shop. She trademarked it because the longtime business, sued another business (a record store) who used the term, "Down in the Valley". Anyhow, the wife checked it out, it wasn't trademarked, so she trademarked it for her company. Then let the coffee shop know they might want to change their name. FWIW, it came around to her by chance that the lawsuit came about between the other two stores. She was just first on the draw.
So, while I have issues with Armalite and Colt trademarking government nomenclature, until someone sues who is willing to dump out the money in court, they will continue to own those trademarks and enforce them if they so choose.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Except as I pointed out above, only Colt is marking their lowers "AR-15". The military doesn't own "AR-15".
Except as I pointed out above, only Colt is marking their lowers "AR-15". The military doesn't own "AR-15".
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except as I pointed out above, only Colt is marking their lowers "AR-15". The military doesn't own "AR-15". </div></div>
As I pointed out earlier, AR-15 was a government nomenclature given to a product of a government research program to replace the M1 carbine. AR-15 was even used by the Air Force and early Army SF troops during the initial purchase of the rifle for combat use overseas. It wasn't until Big Army adopted it, that it became the M-16.
Also, as I gave my reason for not liking it, is because it was based on a government funded program. You don't see Springfield calling their semi-auto M14 clone, the M1A (a trademark unique unto itself)an M-14. Colt may own the trademark and be the only ones to be able to put AR-15 on their lowers, but it doesn't make it right.
I have seen AR-15 on lowers that I used building up my own AR-15's. I've sold them all, but it was there.
It could also have been that they were subcontracted by Colt to build them. Aero-precision, Cerro, Del-Ton and Delaware Machine didn't all get into the AR-15 business 'just because'. They built lowers and uppers under contract. And that may well have been why I got AR lowers marked AR-15.
Also, FWIW, if you think Colt is top quality, you really don't know what you are talking about.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except as I pointed out above, only Colt is marking their lowers "AR-15". The military doesn't own "AR-15". </div></div>
As I pointed out earlier, AR-15 was a government nomenclature given to a product of a government research program to replace the M1 carbine. AR-15 was even used by the Air Force and early Army SF troops during the initial purchase of the rifle for combat use overseas. It wasn't until Big Army adopted it, that it became the M-16.
Also, as I gave my reason for not liking it, is because it was based on a government funded program. You don't see Springfield calling their semi-auto M14 clone, the M1A (a trademark unique unto itself)an M-14. Colt may own the trademark and be the only ones to be able to put AR-15 on their lowers, but it doesn't make it right.
I have seen AR-15 on lowers that I used building up my own AR-15's. I've sold them all, but it was there.
It could also have been that they were subcontracted by Colt to build them. Aero-precision, Cerro, Del-Ton and Delaware Machine didn't all get into the AR-15 business 'just because'. They built lowers and uppers under contract. And that may well have been why I got AR lowers marked AR-15.
Also, FWIW, if you think Colt is top quality, you really don't know what you are talking about.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
I stand down.
da-da-damn.
I stand down.
da-da-damn.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
There are notable cases where a trademarked name had become so common as to be used to describe all products of that variety. The courts determined that those names could be used by other companies because the buying public had the habit of referring to similar products by that name (the term is 'Genericization').
Examples are; Aspirin and Formica, among others.
There are notable cases where a trademarked name had become so common as to be used to describe all products of that variety. The courts determined that those names could be used by other companies because the buying public had the habit of referring to similar products by that name (the term is 'Genericization').
Examples are; Aspirin and Formica, among others.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Original_Copy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">copy/paste from HERE
Even if you don't agree at least you should understand, you wouldn't order a "Coke" if you wanted a "Pepsi", you also wouldn't order a "Pepsi Coke"
Yes its a big deal. </div></div>
Not true.
Many places in the USA.
Q: What would you like to drink.
A: Gimme a coke
Q: What Kind?
A: Pepsi
Sometimes something becomes so ubiquitous that it takes on the name for an entire area. Not just a specific product.
Such as AR10 meaning... to most... 308 size ar15.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Original_Copy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">copy/paste from HERE
Even if you don't agree at least you should understand, you wouldn't order a "Coke" if you wanted a "Pepsi", you also wouldn't order a "Pepsi Coke"
Yes its a big deal. </div></div>
Not true.
Many places in the USA.
Q: What would you like to drink.
A: Gimme a coke
Q: What Kind?
A: Pepsi
Sometimes something becomes so ubiquitous that it takes on the name for an entire area. Not just a specific product.
Such as AR10 meaning... to most... 308 size ar15.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: K_4c</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GhostFace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Way to go Armalite, protect your trademarks! I would bet mark would do the same thing if some started making a 7.62 AR with the reference of OBR in it. This should come as no surprise to anyone... </div></div>
way to bring Larue into this..... the OBR is a defined name and not a general blanket statement... I would assume (and support) any manufacture if the nomenclature of their product was infringed upon (i.e Gap-10, OBR, EMC, etc...) by taking legal actions.</div></div>
AR-10 is a defined name also.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DavidAR10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OP,
You chose the term Ar10. Mark Westrom went and paid money for everything attached to the ARMALITE & AR-10 names and trademarks. Every-da-da-damn-thang.
They are the reason so many other tag along 308 ARs are out today. Hell, there was only KAC at the time.
The newly resurrected ARMALITE put out their first AR-10 rifles and carbines back in 1986. When did the next two companies come out with theirs... and what were/are their names?
So, they don't have something to defend by United States Patent Law? Go ask your attorney about that and post a synopsis here.
I was going to type:
ARMALITE was being nice. They could have handed you your dick and told you to take it home... and kept your wallet.
But, I won't.
EDIT: damn shame so many in this thread don't understand what it takes to defend something that you legally own in the market place.
</div></div>
+10, or +AR-10
Choosing to use a trademarked name just adds to the confusion among owners that can not properly identify the fire arm they own.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: K_4c</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GhostFace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Way to go Armalite, protect your trademarks! I would bet mark would do the same thing if some started making a 7.62 AR with the reference of OBR in it. This should come as no surprise to anyone... </div></div>
way to bring Larue into this..... the OBR is a defined name and not a general blanket statement... I would assume (and support) any manufacture if the nomenclature of their product was infringed upon (i.e Gap-10, OBR, EMC, etc...) by taking legal actions.</div></div>
AR-10 is a defined name also.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DavidAR10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OP,
You chose the term Ar10. Mark Westrom went and paid money for everything attached to the ARMALITE & AR-10 names and trademarks. Every-da-da-damn-thang.
They are the reason so many other tag along 308 ARs are out today. Hell, there was only KAC at the time.
The newly resurrected ARMALITE put out their first AR-10 rifles and carbines back in 1986. When did the next two companies come out with theirs... and what were/are their names?
So, they don't have something to defend by United States Patent Law? Go ask your attorney about that and post a synopsis here.
I was going to type:
ARMALITE was being nice. They could have handed you your dick and told you to take it home... and kept your wallet.
But, I won't.
EDIT: damn shame so many in this thread don't understand what it takes to defend something that you legally own in the market place.
</div></div>
+10, or +AR-10
Choosing to use a trademarked name just adds to the confusion among owners that can not properly identify the fire arm they own.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As I pointed out earlier, AR-15 was a government nomenclature given to a product of a government research program to replace the M1 carbine. AR-15 was even used by the Air Force and early Army SF troops during the initial purchase of the rifle for combat use overseas. It wasn't until Big Army adopted it, that it became the M-16.</div></div>
No, that was the name Armalite gave to it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, as I gave my reason for not liking it, is because it was based on a government funded program. </div></div>
Wait, so the government created a program and funded Armalite now?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't see Springfield calling their semi-auto M14 clone, the M1A (a trademark unique unto itself)an M-14.</div></div>
Do you know the history of the current Springfield Armory? I really don't think you do....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Colt may own the trademark and be the only ones to be able to put AR-15 on their lowers, but it doesn't make it right.</div></div>
So it is your position a company shouldn't be able to defend their own trademarks? You'd love to see Toyota Mustang GTs?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have seen AR-15 on lowers that I used building up my own AR-15's. I've sold them all, but it was there.</div></div>
Find some pictures of current production units. If so, they were infringing on Colt's trademark. Find some evidence other than "I saw one once".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, FWIW, if you think Colt is top quality, you really don't know what you are talking about. </div></div>
I provided you with actual technical discussion that demonstrates the difference in materials and quality control processes of different manufacturers. Colt ranks at the top. Please provide me of technical examples to suggest which companies produce a superior product to Colt Defense.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As I pointed out earlier, AR-15 was a government nomenclature given to a product of a government research program to replace the M1 carbine. AR-15 was even used by the Air Force and early Army SF troops during the initial purchase of the rifle for combat use overseas. It wasn't until Big Army adopted it, that it became the M-16.</div></div>
No, that was the name Armalite gave to it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, as I gave my reason for not liking it, is because it was based on a government funded program. </div></div>
Wait, so the government created a program and funded Armalite now?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't see Springfield calling their semi-auto M14 clone, the M1A (a trademark unique unto itself)an M-14.</div></div>
Do you know the history of the current Springfield Armory? I really don't think you do....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Colt may own the trademark and be the only ones to be able to put AR-15 on their lowers, but it doesn't make it right.</div></div>
So it is your position a company shouldn't be able to defend their own trademarks? You'd love to see Toyota Mustang GTs?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have seen AR-15 on lowers that I used building up my own AR-15's. I've sold them all, but it was there.</div></div>
Find some pictures of current production units. If so, they were infringing on Colt's trademark. Find some evidence other than "I saw one once".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, FWIW, if you think Colt is top quality, you really don't know what you are talking about. </div></div>
I provided you with actual technical discussion that demonstrates the difference in materials and quality control processes of different manufacturers. Colt ranks at the top. Please provide me of technical examples to suggest which companies produce a superior product to Colt Defense.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Just listed a NOT Ar-10* in the for sale section. Because Ar-10 is a trade mark of armalite and this rifle is not a Armalite.
Gonna have a little fun with it and see what happens.
AR 9+1 for sale ;-)
Just listed a NOT Ar-10* in the for sale section. Because Ar-10 is a trade mark of armalite and this rifle is not a Armalite.
Gonna have a little fun with it and see what happens.
AR 9+1 for sale ;-)
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
AR-10 is trademarked. Only AR-10 is trademarked. Just an FYI.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:devm6l.3.1
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76144253&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
Strangely, AR10 is not trademarked. Doubt that it matters.
AR-10 is trademarked. Only AR-10 is trademarked. Just an FYI.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:devm6l.3.1
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76144253&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
Strangely, AR10 is not trademarked. Doubt that it matters.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As I pointed out earlier, AR-15 was a government nomenclature given to a product of a government research program to replace the M1 carbine. AR-15 was even used by the Air Force and early Army SF troops during the initial purchase of the rifle for combat use overseas. It wasn't until Big Army adopted it, that it became the M-16.</div></div>
No, that was the name Armalite gave to it.
Indeed, but it did start out as an Air Force replacement for the carbine. I have some of the raw research notes for "The great rifle controversy" and they are interesting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't see Springfield calling their semi-auto M14 clone, the M1A (a trademark unique unto itself)an M-14.</div></div>
Do you know the history of the current Springfield Armory? I really don't think you do....
Started by Elmer Ballance. Those are called the "Devine" rifles although it's Devine and Radium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
Been working on SA's since Elmer's days and into the SAI products well into the 90's.
I provided you with actual technical discussion that demonstrates the difference in materials and quality control processes of different manufacturers. Colt ranks at the top. Please provide me of technical examples to suggest which companies produce a superior product to Colt Defense. </div></div>
Colt management and the way the company has been run since the late 70's is questionable, especially given the fact that the M16 production at one point went to FN, not Colt. But that's another issue. My "issues" with Colt are the fact that we were trying to get them to produce a good practical .45 that only took them 30 years to produce... sadly well behind the curve. I can tell you a lot of stories about Colt problems late 70's to early 80's... I was one of the warrentee station guys on the west coast. Never ask me about the fully cyclic Gold Cups.. there were a great deal of them. Hammer and sear pin holes were out of spec.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As I pointed out earlier, AR-15 was a government nomenclature given to a product of a government research program to replace the M1 carbine. AR-15 was even used by the Air Force and early Army SF troops during the initial purchase of the rifle for combat use overseas. It wasn't until Big Army adopted it, that it became the M-16.</div></div>
No, that was the name Armalite gave to it.
Indeed, but it did start out as an Air Force replacement for the carbine. I have some of the raw research notes for "The great rifle controversy" and they are interesting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't see Springfield calling their semi-auto M14 clone, the M1A (a trademark unique unto itself)an M-14.</div></div>
Do you know the history of the current Springfield Armory? I really don't think you do....
Started by Elmer Ballance. Those are called the "Devine" rifles although it's Devine and Radium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
Been working on SA's since Elmer's days and into the SAI products well into the 90's.
I provided you with actual technical discussion that demonstrates the difference in materials and quality control processes of different manufacturers. Colt ranks at the top. Please provide me of technical examples to suggest which companies produce a superior product to Colt Defense. </div></div>
Colt management and the way the company has been run since the late 70's is questionable, especially given the fact that the M16 production at one point went to FN, not Colt. But that's another issue. My "issues" with Colt are the fact that we were trying to get them to produce a good practical .45 that only took them 30 years to produce... sadly well behind the curve. I can tell you a lot of stories about Colt problems late 70's to early 80's... I was one of the warrentee station guys on the west coast. Never ask me about the fully cyclic Gold Cups.. there were a great deal of them. Hammer and sear pin holes were out of spec.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RWSGunsmithing</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just listed a NOT Ar-10* in the for sale section.
Gonna have a little fun with it and see what happens.
AR 9+1 for sale ;-)
</div></div>
Poking the bear with a stick... smart. You do realize that companies like Armalite probably have Attorneys(plural) already on retainer, i.e. they're paying them anyways so giving them something to do is not the smartest idea. Unless you have money to burn on proving a point you might rethink your crusade before it really hurts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TwoGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AR-10 is trademarked. Only AR-10 is trademarked. Just an FYI.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:devm6l.3.1
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76144253&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
Strangely, AR10 is not trademarked. Doubt that it matters. </div></div>
It doesn't matter if you remove the "-" as it would still fall under the registered TM.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RWSGunsmithing</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just listed a NOT Ar-10* in the for sale section.
Gonna have a little fun with it and see what happens.
AR 9+1 for sale ;-)
</div></div>
Poking the bear with a stick... smart. You do realize that companies like Armalite probably have Attorneys(plural) already on retainer, i.e. they're paying them anyways so giving them something to do is not the smartest idea. Unless you have money to burn on proving a point you might rethink your crusade before it really hurts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TwoGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AR-10 is trademarked. Only AR-10 is trademarked. Just an FYI.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:devm6l.3.1
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76144253&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
Strangely, AR10 is not trademarked. Doubt that it matters. </div></div>
It doesn't matter if you remove the "-" as it would still fall under the registered TM.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
armalite does not even call their .556 rifles ar15. They call it a m15.
armalite does not even call their .556 rifles ar15. They call it a m15.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Original_Copy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">copy/paste from HERE
1. Why does everyone make a big deal of calling my semi 308 a "AR10"?
The reason is because Armalite has spent a lot of money producing the AR-10 when no-one else would. They have spent a lot of time building the name and reputation not to just have someone else use it to describe their rifle. Another problem stems from the fact that many people refer to problems with their "semi 308" as a "AR-10 problems". This misnomer leads people to believe that the AR-10 is a poorly built rifle with a lot of problems, when in fact, the opposite is true.
Even if you don't agree at least you should understand, you wouldn't order a "Coke" if you wanted a "Pepsi", you also wouldn't order a "Pepsi Coke"
Yes its a big deal. </div></div>
This is a very good explanation but there are some assumptions in it that I'm not convinced are accurate. Most notably the notion that the consumer would assign a lack of quality to an Armalite rifle because someone had issues with their <span style="font-style: italic">insert mfgr here</span>. .308 autos aren't cheap and they're not exactly impulse purchases, at least in the context of choosing a manufacturer. I'm on my second .308 and had researched both of them extensively prior to making the leap. As part of that research I had looked at Armalite and subsequently looked elsewhere not due to any percieved quality issue, but because of the proprietary nature of the parts, the fact that others had taken the platform in new directions, and this very branding arguement which I found to be a turn-off considering that AR-anything had made it into pop culture...its almost a household word.
It's almost insulting to think that the shooting community doesn't know the difference and I think the arguement does more harm to Armalite than good. It was a far better arguement before the internet. Now...info is everywhere and shooters educate themselves. There's no confusion. </div></div>
We have all seen the dozens and dozens of posts about my AR10 is crap on different forums, only to find the rifle in question is not a ArmaLite AR-10. All fire arms have a correct name or nomenclature, we should use it.
ArmaLite is no more proprietary than any other 7.62 AR platform manufacturer. Not only small parts but we see four or five different magazines being used. The SR-25 mag has finally become the defecto standard, and why? Because ArmaLite now builds a SR-25 AR-10.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Original_Copy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">copy/paste from HERE
1. Why does everyone make a big deal of calling my semi 308 a "AR10"?
The reason is because Armalite has spent a lot of money producing the AR-10 when no-one else would. They have spent a lot of time building the name and reputation not to just have someone else use it to describe their rifle. Another problem stems from the fact that many people refer to problems with their "semi 308" as a "AR-10 problems". This misnomer leads people to believe that the AR-10 is a poorly built rifle with a lot of problems, when in fact, the opposite is true.
Even if you don't agree at least you should understand, you wouldn't order a "Coke" if you wanted a "Pepsi", you also wouldn't order a "Pepsi Coke"
Yes its a big deal. </div></div>
This is a very good explanation but there are some assumptions in it that I'm not convinced are accurate. Most notably the notion that the consumer would assign a lack of quality to an Armalite rifle because someone had issues with their <span style="font-style: italic">insert mfgr here</span>. .308 autos aren't cheap and they're not exactly impulse purchases, at least in the context of choosing a manufacturer. I'm on my second .308 and had researched both of them extensively prior to making the leap. As part of that research I had looked at Armalite and subsequently looked elsewhere not due to any percieved quality issue, but because of the proprietary nature of the parts, the fact that others had taken the platform in new directions, and this very branding arguement which I found to be a turn-off considering that AR-anything had made it into pop culture...its almost a household word.
It's almost insulting to think that the shooting community doesn't know the difference and I think the arguement does more harm to Armalite than good. It was a far better arguement before the internet. Now...info is everywhere and shooters educate themselves. There's no confusion. </div></div>
We have all seen the dozens and dozens of posts about my AR10 is crap on different forums, only to find the rifle in question is not a ArmaLite AR-10. All fire arms have a correct name or nomenclature, we should use it.
ArmaLite is no more proprietary than any other 7.62 AR platform manufacturer. Not only small parts but we see four or five different magazines being used. The SR-25 mag has finally become the defecto standard, and why? Because ArmaLite now builds a SR-25 AR-10.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As I pointed out earlier, AR-15 was a government nomenclature given to a product of a government research program to replace the M1 carbine. AR-15 was even used by the Air Force and early Army SF troops during the initial purchase of the rifle for combat use overseas. It wasn't until Big Army adopted it, that it became the M-16.</div></div>
No, that was the name Armalite gave to it.
Indeed, but it did start out as an Air Force replacement for the carbine. I have some of the raw research notes for "The great rifle controversy" and they are interesting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't see Springfield calling their semi-auto M14 clone, the M1A (a trademark unique unto itself)an M-14.</div></div>
Do you know the history of the current Springfield Armory? I really don't think you do....
Started by Elmer Ballance. Those are called the "Devine" rifles although it's Devine and Radium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
Been working on SA's since Elmer's days and into the SAI products well into the 90's.
I provided you with actual technical discussion that demonstrates the difference in materials and quality control processes of different manufacturers. Colt ranks at the top. Please provide me of technical examples to suggest which companies produce a superior product to Colt Defense. </div></div>
Colt management and the way the company has been run since the late 70's is questionable, especially given the fact that the M16 production at one point went to FN, not Colt. But that's another issue. My "issues" with Colt are the fact that we were trying to get them to produce a good practical .45 that only took them 30 years to produce... sadly well behind the curve. I can tell you a lot of stories about Colt problems late 70's to early 80's... I was one of the warrentee station guys on the west coast. Never ask me about the fully cyclic Gold Cups.. there were a great deal of them. Hammer and sear pin holes were out of spec. </div></div>
Again, what does this have to do with current production of Colt Defense?
Furthermore, I believe the reason FN got contracts was not quality related as their contract mandates specifics on quality.
Colts Mfg is not Colt Defense. When there is a limited market or the archaic .45, I couldn't see a reason they would pump money into it. Perhaps their Mfg division, but still, they were selling what they already have on the market to their capacity. Their interest has been their Defense division until recently. Also, I'd say "practical .45" is a bit of an oxymoron, but that's another debate altogether. But it's spelled G-L-O-C-K
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As I pointed out earlier, AR-15 was a government nomenclature given to a product of a government research program to replace the M1 carbine. AR-15 was even used by the Air Force and early Army SF troops during the initial purchase of the rifle for combat use overseas. It wasn't until Big Army adopted it, that it became the M-16.</div></div>
No, that was the name Armalite gave to it.
Indeed, but it did start out as an Air Force replacement for the carbine. I have some of the raw research notes for "The great rifle controversy" and they are interesting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't see Springfield calling their semi-auto M14 clone, the M1A (a trademark unique unto itself)an M-14.</div></div>
Do you know the history of the current Springfield Armory? I really don't think you do....
Started by Elmer Ballance. Those are called the "Devine" rifles although it's Devine and Radium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
Been working on SA's since Elmer's days and into the SAI products well into the 90's.
I provided you with actual technical discussion that demonstrates the difference in materials and quality control processes of different manufacturers. Colt ranks at the top. Please provide me of technical examples to suggest which companies produce a superior product to Colt Defense. </div></div>
Colt management and the way the company has been run since the late 70's is questionable, especially given the fact that the M16 production at one point went to FN, not Colt. But that's another issue. My "issues" with Colt are the fact that we were trying to get them to produce a good practical .45 that only took them 30 years to produce... sadly well behind the curve. I can tell you a lot of stories about Colt problems late 70's to early 80's... I was one of the warrentee station guys on the west coast. Never ask me about the fully cyclic Gold Cups.. there were a great deal of them. Hammer and sear pin holes were out of spec. </div></div>
Again, what does this have to do with current production of Colt Defense?
Furthermore, I believe the reason FN got contracts was not quality related as their contract mandates specifics on quality.
Colts Mfg is not Colt Defense. When there is a limited market or the archaic .45, I couldn't see a reason they would pump money into it. Perhaps their Mfg division, but still, they were selling what they already have on the market to their capacity. Their interest has been their Defense division until recently. Also, I'd say "practical .45" is a bit of an oxymoron, but that's another debate altogether. But it's spelled G-L-O-C-K
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Just edited my post to clarify the the gun for sale is not a Ar-10* because that is trade marked by Armalite.
Just edited my post to clarify the the gun for sale is not a Ar-10* because that is trade marked by Armalite.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: madcratebuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We have all seen the dozens and dozens of posts about my AR10 is crap on different forums, only to find the rifle in question is not a ArmaLite AR-10. All fire arms have a correct name or nomenclature, we should use it.
ArmaLite is no more proprietary than any other 7.62 AR platform manufacturer. Not only small parts but we see four or five different magazines being used. The SR-25 mag has finally become the defecto standard, and why? Because ArmaLite now builds a SR-25 AR-10. </div></div>
There is NO WAY you're going to lure me back into what is likely one of the dumbest arguements on the internet, second only to the "<span style="font-style: italic">what's the best bipod</span>" and "<span style="font-style: italic">Al Gore created the internet</span>" arguements. Nice try though.
These statemens brought to you by the letters "A", "R", and the number "10"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: madcratebuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We have all seen the dozens and dozens of posts about my AR10 is crap on different forums, only to find the rifle in question is not a ArmaLite AR-10. All fire arms have a correct name or nomenclature, we should use it.
ArmaLite is no more proprietary than any other 7.62 AR platform manufacturer. Not only small parts but we see four or five different magazines being used. The SR-25 mag has finally become the defecto standard, and why? Because ArmaLite now builds a SR-25 AR-10. </div></div>
There is NO WAY you're going to lure me back into what is likely one of the dumbest arguements on the internet, second only to the "<span style="font-style: italic">what's the best bipod</span>" and "<span style="font-style: italic">Al Gore created the internet</span>" arguements. Nice try though.
These statemens brought to you by the letters "A", "R", and the number "10"
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s. </div></div>
Except Colt still has the AR-15 mark:
While Armalite uses the M15 mark
I'd imagine this is because Armalite has no rights to "AR-15" as they sold it to Colt. I can only imagine Armalite reacquired "AR-10" at some point as Colt never marketed them. What manufacturers are calling theirs an "AR-15" besides Colt?
Rock River? Nope LAR-15:
DPMS? Nope, A-15:
Bushmaster? Nope, XM-15:
Noveske? Nope, N4:
Smith & Wesson? Nope, M&P-15:
BCM? Nope, they are using a military designation (not trademarked) M4A1:
Knights? Nope, SR-15:
So, looking at what other companies have done in the past, it appears that Armalite may stop people from calling it an "AR-10", but not "GAP-10". </div></div>
Is that an RRA "Winter" trigger guard on a colt??? Uh Oh
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s. </div></div>
Except Colt still has the AR-15 mark:
While Armalite uses the M15 mark
I'd imagine this is because Armalite has no rights to "AR-15" as they sold it to Colt. I can only imagine Armalite reacquired "AR-10" at some point as Colt never marketed them. What manufacturers are calling theirs an "AR-15" besides Colt?
Rock River? Nope LAR-15:
DPMS? Nope, A-15:
Bushmaster? Nope, XM-15:
Noveske? Nope, N4:
Smith & Wesson? Nope, M&P-15:
BCM? Nope, they are using a military designation (not trademarked) M4A1:
Knights? Nope, SR-15:
So, looking at what other companies have done in the past, it appears that Armalite may stop people from calling it an "AR-10", but not "GAP-10". </div></div>
Is that an RRA "Winter" trigger guard on a colt??? Uh Oh
Similar threads
