US Army Armaments Center Patents New M4 Heavy Barrel

US Army Armaments Center Patents New M4 Heavy Barrel



On Tuesday, the Army was granted a 15-year design patent, which is now available for license to businesses that would manufacture the barrel.

Thomas Grego and Adam Foltz designed the heavy barrel at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. It features spiral fluting in three distinct areas that increase the exterior surface area of the barrel as well as reduce overall weight.



Helically fluted, we shall see if it gets into the system and can be soldier proofed
 
US Army Armaments Center Patents New M4 Heavy Barrel



On Tuesday, the Army was granted a 15-year design patent, which is now available for license to businesses that would manufacture the barrel.

Thomas Grego and Adam Foltz designed the heavy barrel at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. It features spiral fluting in three distinct areas that increase the exterior surface area of the barrel as well as reduce overall weight.



Helically fluted, we shall see if it gets into the system and can be soldier proofed
More dirt collecting areas to clean.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
 
More dirt collecting areas to clean.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
one of my thoughts, especially since you arent supposed to remove the rail system at user level
 
On Tuesday, the Army was granted a 15-year design patent, which is now available for license to businesses that would manufacture the barrel.
Journos, eh? :rolleyes: It's not a "design patent", it's a "utility patent" in US parlance (just a "patent" to the rest of us). And it's not valid 15 years, but 20 years counting from filing.
 
Wow. That's about the most pointless patent claim I've seen in a long time...

1595002633282.png
 
Problem is the USPTO has allowed previous ideas to be patented along with the DNA of plants and Animals in recent years.

The Russians are the same, they allowed the AK47 to be patented about 60 years after Kalashnikov was given an inventors certificate (the Soviet Union's version of a patent) in 1949.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
 
Problem is the USPTO has allowed previous ideas to be patented along with the DNA of plants and Animals in recent years.

The Russians are the same, they allowed the AK47 to be patented about 60 years after Kalashnikov was given an inventors certificate (the Soviet Union's version of a patent) in 1949.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
I can guarantee you they didn't allow "the AK47" to be patented in around 2009....
 
Yes, first thing I thought of when I saw the original post.
What is claimed is not the same as the Pedersen fluting.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
What is claimed is not the same as the Pedersen fluting.
Maybe not but fluting isn’t new, will this affect heavy target barrel makers?
 
Maybe not but fluting isn’t new, will this affect heavy target barrel makers?
No. Not unless they make exactly the barrel as minutely specified in the claim I posted above. The claim is literally worthless aside from possibly extracting licence money back from manufacturers contracted to make exactly that. Anyone else can change it up in a fairly trivial manner and no longer be covered.
 
Sorry, I admit I was wrong, patented 30/12/1997. Kalashnikov's Automatic Weapon. Russian patent 97000017.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
That's not a patent number. That's an application number. I also cannot find it in the database, even when correctly formatted. And I've played about with looking for similar numebrs starting with 97 and ending in 17, both as application and publication number.

I can also not find any patent or application meeting that description either filed or published in Russia on 30.12.97.

Please provide a link to the document you are referring to.

Fundamentally, you cannot patent something which has previously been available to the public (caveat for grace periods under certain circumstances).
 
No. Not unless they make exactly the barrel as minutely specified in the claim I posted above. The claim is literally worthless aside from possibly extracting licence money back from manufacturers contracted to make exactly that. Anyone else can change it up in a fairly trivial manner and no longer be covered.
But unlikely to get a US gov contract unless they use this design and the money is with those lovely gov contracts from uncle sugar, not bubba and his bushmaster fetish
 

Latest Threads

Top