?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Opinions of MGI MARCK-15 modular AR-15? - Open Knowledge — LiveJournal

Dec. 4th, 2008

12:09 pm - Opinions of MGI MARCK-15 modular AR-15?

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

[crossposted to guns]

MGI MARCK-15 Modular Weapons System (pdf) manufactured by MGI military? The base gun currently costs $2000.

I’m interested in the gun from a emergency preparedness perspective. With the appropriate mag wells and barrels, the gun can currently accept the following magazines:

5.56 x 45 AR-15
7.62×39 AK-47
9 mm Colt style or the traditionally modified Uzi style
.45 M3 Grease Gun magazines

Note that these are unmodified standard magazines. Mag wells that accept .22LR, .308 Winchester, and many other calibers are also under development.

The upper receiver uses standard barrels and is compatible with all mil-spec lowers. Likewise the lower is compatible with all mil-spec uppers. The magwell and barrel (assuming you have the MGI Quick Barrel Change (QBC) upper) can be changed out in a few minutes without tools.

From a preparedness standpoint, the gun has the following advantages:

* reduced parts count. In addition to requiring fewer spare parts, the guns can be cannibalized to provide parts for each other.
* reduced training complexity. Aside from barrel and mag well, the gun is the same for all calibers.
* reduced cost of training. When the .22LR magwell is released, one could train with the gun very inexpensively.
* increased adaptability. In a SHTF situation, magazines and ammo are likely to scarce and catch as catch can. Therefore, a gun which can adapt to the available ammo would be useful.
* aside from the lower receiver and magwell, the gun uses standard AR-15 parts, which allows it to be used with the wide variety of AR-15 accessories that are available.
* Easy breakdown and cleaning. With the QBC upper, the gun can be broken down in minutes without tools.

Possible disadvantages:

* reduced accuracy.
* reduced repeatability
* reduced reliability

All of the above stem from the fact that a tool that is capable of multiple tasks is not optimized to be great at any of them.

Questions:

1. Has anyone here shot the gun? If so, what are your impressions of the gun’s accuracy and repeatability?
2. If I were to buy the lower receiver alone, does that count as buying the gun for legal purposes? I ask because my intent is to buy the lower receivers now (in anticipation of a likely gun ban), and finish them out later.
3. As I live in CA, I plan to install a bullet button. Anyone else done this? What brand would you recommend?
4. Anyone have recommendations for a FFL holder in the Bay Area to ship the receivers to?

Thanks!

Original: craschworks - comments

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:radiantsun
Date:December 4th, 2008 07:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
that's hot.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 4th, 2008 07:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It is pretty isn't it?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:smjayman
Date:December 4th, 2008 08:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What's the retail cost of that bad boy? That is the thing I would consider most. If it is around the standard cost of an AR-15, then it makes sense. However if it costs a lot more, you could go ahead and buy multiple guns. Since this gun has non-standard parts and doesn't have 100% interchangeability with a standard AR, you lose some of the beauty of the AR system, i.e. parts availability is exceptional.

The receiver is the "gun" for purposes of purchase and transfer. I couldn't comment on the CA specific legalities.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 4th, 2008 08:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The base gun currently costs $2000, which looks to be about double the cost of a standard AR-15.

You do lose some of the parts availability of the standard AR-15, that's true. However, most parts are standard, and you can use mil-spec receivers with the upper, and ditto for the lower. So if the non-standard parts become damaged and replacement parts are unavailable, you can still use most of the gun with standard AR-15 parts.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:madbard
Date:December 4th, 2008 08:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Guns aren't the answer.

Pre-emptive poisoning of your enemies is the answer.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 5th, 2008 01:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
Works for Putin!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:perich
Date:December 4th, 2008 08:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The interchangeability sounds like a neat thing to play around with. But I would presume that in the kind of social breakdown where you need a gun, you're going to want fewer options (for ease of planning and resupply) rather than more. So I don't know how great this is for that purpose.

You're better read on the subject of survival than I am, but that's my initial take.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 5th, 2008 09:46 am (UTC)
(Link)
Here's my rationale:

It doesn't do much good to own a gun unless you practice frequently enough to shoot it competently. Unfortunately, ammo's expensive. A single round of .223 Remington/5.56x45mm (AR15) or 7.62x39 (AK47) will cost you about $0.30 - $0.35 (assuming you could buy it in 1000 round lots right now). Whereas a single round of .22LR costs about $0.05. Therefore, it's much less costly to practice with .22LR than it is to practice with the other rounds.

Although the skills learned with a .22 rifle translate fairly well, it would be ideal if you could shoot the .22 round out of the same gun that you would be using in an actual fight. Then, your muscle memory for changing mags, sighting the gun, pulling the trigger, etc. would be as similar as possible.

In addition to the .22LR round, you will also likely want other calibres for other purposes. A gun that shoots 0.308, for example, would be useful for hunting big game, and for long range defense.

In a SHTF situation, ammo supplies will likely be cut off indefinitely. Even if you buy a lot of ammo beforehand, it will likely go quickly (if only for continued practice). Therefore, being able to shoot different kinds of ammo, not just what you've stored, will likely be important. .22LR, .223 Remington (AR15), 7.62x39 (AK47), and 0.308 Winchester are probably the most commonly available rifle rounds. Therefore, it would be nice if you had a weapon that could shoot each of those rounds.

In addition, guns fail, and as the saying goes "Two is one, one is none." You need backup parts. So if you have a separate kind of gun for each kind of ammo, you will also need four different sets of spare parts, each from a different manufacturer.

With the MARCK-15, only the barrel, bolt/bolt carrier, and mag well are different. Everything else is interchangeable. So, if you have multiple MARCK15's, they can act as spare parts for each other even if they're in different calibers.

And the lower and upper can both be fitted to their standard mil-spec counterparts, even if made by a different manufacturer.

So rather than complicating the planning and resupply, the gun seems to simplify it to me.

The primary disadvantage is cost--the guns cost about double what it cost to buy vanilla AR15.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:perich
Date:December 5th, 2008 12:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So rather than complicating the planning and resupply, the gun seems to simplify it to me.

Makes sense.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:drewkitty
Date:December 5th, 2008 01:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
Specialized equipment, unless it's mission critical, tends to bite you when you need it most.

Keep it simple. If you want the wide range of compatibility, keep something around chambered in 7.62x39, a .22 LR, and a .30-06. This gives you three shooters instead of one, plus reduces the malfunction drill to "pick up the next gun."

Also, you do realize that it's a "dreaded assault weapon" in California because it has removable magazines and a pistol grip, right?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:drewkitty
Date:December 5th, 2008 01:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, the lower receiver is the gun for all practical purposes. ATF and DOJ see nuances, of course.

Never mind re: "dread assault weapon." I had not run into the Bullet Button. Interesting wrinkle, and it is consistent with the present assault weapons laws. Shhh, no one tell a legislator!

Just goes to show:

http://blog.riflegear.com/articles/building-a-california--legal-ar-15-rifle.aspx
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 5th, 2008 01:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 5th, 2008 01:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks! I do realize that it's considered an "assault" weapon, hence my question about the "bullet button".

I suppose it depends on how one defines "keep it simple". Keeping separate models of guns, with duplicate, incompatible spare parts seems more complex than having identical guns, save for the mag wells, bolts, and barrels.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:forestmaster
Date:December 5th, 2008 02:58 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I can't specifically answer your 4 questions, but if the base gun costs $2000, what would your total cost be if you add all the appropriate barrels and sufficient quantities of magazines for each? If it uses standard magazines that would also fit an AR15, AK47/AKM, and other common guns, that may be an advantage.

I would say that it might be in your better interest and cheaper in the long run to buy an AK47 and/or AR-15 and a 22 conversion kit for it.

- Reduced parts count - maybe, but you're in the same boat as before if a part breaks that you don't have from an uncommon gun that may not have a large after-parts market...
- Reduced training complexity could be achieved with a standard gun or guns that have .22LR conversion kits or .22LR versions of common guns... This relates to your reduced training cost... there are already lots of guns out there that can meet this need (a friend just picked up a WASR in 22LR that looks pretty similar and handles the same as his AK...)

In a SHTF situation, go with what you know and have... you can't plan for every possibility. If available ammo is found, an available gun that can shoot it may also be found... or having more than one gun available for like minded friends could be useful too.

Reduced accuracy/repeatability/reliability could be due to this kind of gun or trying to make one gun fit too many possible needs. Having 2 or 3 more specialized guns may be cheaper and much more effective for the long haul...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 6th, 2008 01:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for your thoughts!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)