Expensive AR lower worth it?

[lysanderxiii]

Just an FYI, the reproducing of logos like that is probably copyright infringement (in fact, it almost certainly is). Not being a wet blanket and it isn't likely to be an issue or anything, but there's a reason lowers aren't being mass-manufactured with rampant colt's on them. I'd have done Armalite, since I don't think there's anyone left to sue me at this point

Also be aware that if your 80% M16A1 forgery (let's call it what it is ) is a little too realistic, it'd be awful hard to prove its non-M16 ancestry should a crooked cop/agent drill a little hole in the side. I'm sure there's certain internal details that still differentiate it, but my point is that a perfect forgery becomes increasingly indistinguishable from the real thing --which is highly illegal in this case-- especially to ignoramuses. (gonna go oil-down my Hotchkiss Universal with no externally-visible semi-auto conversion mods, now

TCB

No copyright infringement at all. The rampant horse is a "trademark".

And while technically true that it is infringement of Colt's trademark, I doubt Colt would bother to sue, as the copier is not marketing lowers with this logo, although he might get a cease and desist order telling him not to do it anymore.

Oh, and "Armalite", as a trademark, still exists, it is owned by Strategic Armory Corps, but the image of Pegasus in cross hairs is owned by someone else, I can't recall who exactly.

As to this being confused with a real M16A1... if he did the FCG pocket to semi-auto specs, there is no problem, as that "fourth hole" is just and engraved circle (I can see that in the picture). No law against engraving circles on your stuff....

As to the second one, that raises an interesting problem. US Manufacturer's are requireds to mark their name, business location, model and a unique serial number. Homemade stuff is not required to have such markings. But, by copying Colt's markings to such a degree, you may have inadvertently duplicated an existing Colt serial number.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Pretty sure he covered it elsewhere, that he did the research on the serial numbers and Colt did not ever use that particular serial number on any of their rifles.

The only issue with such a close reproduction is that if it were ever stolen and recovered, LEs would likely contact Colt in their effort to trace the gun, and hit a dead end right off the bat, making a return to the owner much more difficult.

 

[Rottweiler]

Many people have asked me which lower was "the best". My reply was all mil-spec lowers are the same, pick the two that have the logo on the side that you like the best and let your wallet make the final cut.

 

[yugorpk]

I'm going to buy a 80% and have it engraved with this because we all know they made M-16's . The drills Sergeants in Basic Training even told me so. The Drill sergeants in basic told me a lot of stuff.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Pretty sure he covered it elsewhere, that he did the research on the serial numbers and Colt did not ever use that particular serial number on any of their rifles.

The only issue with such a close reproduction is that if it were ever stolen and recovered, LEs would likely contact Colt in their effort to trace the gun, and hit a dead end right off the bat, making a return to the owner much more difficult.

Seems like a pretty limited increase in risk marking it a Colt based on the fact that if you're building from a 80% lower it is unlikely to have any useful traceability back to you anyway unless you deliberately mark the receiver with identifying information. Marked as Colt or not law enforcement won't have the benefit of finding the owner via a manufacture.

 

[Devilfrog]

I recently finished a similar build using the "Hellbreaker" lower from Sharps Bros (who actually make the "Jack" lower you're looking at). I had same reasoning, I liked it and now that I've built it, I love it and it has become one of my favorites.
As for the quality, I've got no complaints. Everything fit as it should and had no issues with compatibility.
Basically it boils down to, who cares what others think as long as you enjoy it!

 

[highpower]

Just an FYI, the reproducing of logos like that is probably copyright infringement (in fact, it almost certainly is). Not being a wet blanket and it isn't likely to be an issue or anything, but there's a reason lowers aren't being mass-manufactured with rampant colt's on them. I'd have done Armalite, since I don't think there's anyone left to sue me at this point

Also be aware that if your 80% M16A1 forgery (let's call it what it is ) is a little too realistic, it'd be awful hard to prove its non-M16 ancestry should a crooked cop/agent drill a little hole in the side. I'm sure there's certain internal details that still differentiate it, but my point is that a perfect forgery becomes increasingly indistinguishable from the real thing --which is highly illegal in this case-- especially to ignoramuses. (gonna go oil-down my Hotchkiss Universal with no externally-visible semi-auto conversion mods, now )

TCB

I was wondering when the net nannys would show up. So much concern about nothing....

As long as I am not going to sell these as real Colts, there is no violation of any law. I have seen many Harleys that were built using no genuine parts at all with "Harley-Davidson" painted on their tanks, yet no one thinks twice about it. You may worry all you want, but I'm not. Over on ARFcom, you will see that there are literally hundreds of that have been made as retro rifles.

As for the serial number on the second receiver; that number is taken from a block that was never used by Colt. There is no factory rifle with that number anywhere in the world. Since it is homemade from a blank and does not have any provision for the auto sear to be installed it is just fine.

 

[lysanderxiii]

As long as I am not going to sell these as real Colts, there is no violation of any law.

Technically, it is counterfeiting, as defined by the Lanham Act.

... a spurious mark—... that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so registered; ... the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive...

However, you are correct that as long as the item is never sold there has been no violation of the law. If it is sold, regardless of whether or not you announce that it is not a 'real Colt', it is a violation of the law...

I have seen many Harleys that were built using no genuine parts at all with "Harley-Davidson" painted on their tanks, yet no one thinks twice about it.

Technically, it is a form of trademark infringement, and possibly counterfeiting, whether or not anyone thinks twice about it.

I don't really care one way or another, just say'n....

 

[lysanderxiii]

...useful traceability back to you ....

Even factory made guns have almost no traceability to the present owner, especially if they have changed owners at least once.

Recoverability is more important to me....

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Even factory made guns have almost no traceability to the present owner, especially if they have changed owners at least once.



Recoverability is more important to me....

I don't disagree with your point on traceability of factory firearms. I didn't bring up the initial point but was rather commenting that there is little difference in recoverability of an 80% lower regardless if it has the word Colt on it or not.