Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HB of CJ

Mossberg Double Stack Mags DO NOT Fit The Saiga 12 ...

Recommended Posts

Title says it.  Had both on the bench at the gun shop.  Held.  Eyeballed.  Attempted.  Compared.  Mossberg double stack box 12 gage mags are not even a close fit.  Width.  Length.  Latching mechanism.  Shell height.

 

The Mossberg double stacks are for 2.75" shells only.  I have confirmed the Trench 12 and the Saiga 12 receivers are very close. This mean the Mossberg double stacks will NOT fit the Saiga 12 receiver either.  No go.

 

Now having said this, it would be a fun study and attempt for somebody to sit down and analyze all the differences and come up with a CAD program to experiment with an adapter kit for the Saiga 12 mag well.  Fun?

 

Doable?  Dunno that.  Right now by multiple eyeballs and comparisons I would say NO.  But anything may be possible.  The Saiga receiver is too narrow.  The Mossberg double stack too wide.  Perhaps a good future project?

 

By direct comparison the Csspecs 10 rd steel box 12 gage mags click in and out so easy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good pics would help.  Great detailed multiple pics would help better.  Working the problem.  But .... first ya gotta have a good camera.  Then a 8 year old granddaughter to show you how to format the pics to send to this excellent forum.  Then you need to share. 

 

Edited more:   If somebody came up with a working pre production model of an adaptor that let Saiga 12 and very similar AK type stamped receivers use Mossberg double stack mags, would THAT be a violation of patent rights?  Patent pending rights?  Legalities?

 

A private component not for public sale.  I dunno.  We compared Ceespec steel box mags to a 5 round Mossberg double stack mag and the Mossberg receiver to a Trench 12 receiver.  All combinations.  Got some smart guys, (not me) to thinking a bit.  We will see.

 

Edited some more:  Me thinks here is might just be easier to use the 20 rd drum.

Edited by HB of CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An adapter to mate two patented products together shouldn't infringe any patents. It would be the same legal grounds as creating an aftermarket magazine or furniture set to fit a patented firearm. Unless the adapter copies a unique and patented attachment method or specific unique design that's patented directly it should not be an issue. The locking method on the mossberg magazines are likely not unique or patented. If they are the patent numbers should be on them to look up to see what design features are specifically covered by the patent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice borrowed or purchased electronical camera now on the fast track.  We really need lots of pictures displayed here.  Then let you smart guys, (really) think a bit.  That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well.  i finally acquired a double stack tonight.  pretty good looking.  but yes, its too wide and the mag catch and latch are funkily located (i assume to make retrofitting to AK hard).  so that leaves building new tower as best option.  anyone wanna see pics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the mossberg patent is the notches in the receiver to limit fore and aft travel. Those would probably need to be on a magwell for this mag. I think the idea behind them is that the magazine is supported in fewer places, rather than by a magwell all the way around the mag body, thus limiting the number of critical dimensions in either the mag or the magwell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a new tower is made it will actually infringe on two different patents.  The only way to do it is to modify the existing tower of the mag.  

The notches in the receiver aren’t patented.  They are suppose to be for recoil mitigation but really they aren’t even needed.  If anything they just make the receiver weaker.  The real forces on the magazine aren’t front to back but are downward forces on the front and rear mag catch.  That means the notches aren’t really doing anything at all.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which patents?I have looked through the list of patents from or assigned to Mossberg, and none of them seem specific to the mag tower.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one.  https://www.google.com.pg/patents/US8966801

The number is on the tower section along with the number for the double stack patent.  

I think Mossberg has an exclusive on the tower section patent but not sure.  

I know they definitely have a right to enforce both it and the double stack patent.  Making a tower is infringing on 2 different patents.  It would be very unwise for someone to do so.  If someome wants to use these mags in another gun they will need to work with what is there.  If they remove the tower and replace it with a different tower they are asking for serious troubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at that patent, it is for having the mag in two pieces to cheapen manufacture and make it easy to manufacture modular feed towers for different guns. Kinda surprised that was granted as non-obvious. Several guns out there have had modular magwells, and I know the maxrounds drum came with mix & match feed towers, so that's a prior art.

It would be infringing to make that magazine, but I don't see how it would infringe to USE the magazine in another gun. i.e. buy a mossberg mag and fit a gun to it. Or alter mossberg mags, and obliterate the logos. That would be under first sale doctrine and whatnot. Obliterating the logos would prevent some BS brand dilution claim. 

 

If the gun is modified to take the mag, and that doesn't require any unique features covered by a new patent, then that's not a violation. I would say that any patent claiming features like having the ability to engage locking lugs with a latch or two are going to be weak.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/61/2a/e6/6529e1d1db24b3/US8756846.pdf

I looked through this patent, which admittedly I didn't fully parse out. As near as I can tell by casual reading, it's only real claim is having a conversion receiver, not modifying an existing receiver. It's scope is for conventional shotguns, and it very broadly names every normal feature of any firearm, right down to firing pins and feed ramps. Those are clearly extraneous to the claim. 

Given that box fed factory pump guns have come from both Italy and China in factory configurations some of which I think go back to the 1970s, that otherwise exactly meet the description, it can't be an enforceable claim that making a new gun which takes box mags and is otherwise a conventional tube based shotty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,  don't think modifying a ready made receiver, particularly one which was originally designed for box fed would be within the scope of the patent in the above post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunfun, You are a lawyer right?  

Interesting points you bring up, except I have t read everything cause I haven’t gone to the patent links. The legalese makes my head hurt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 6:03 PM, gunfun said:

Looking at that patent, it is for having the mag in two pieces to cheapen manufacture and make it easy to manufacture modular feed towers for different guns. Kinda surprised that was granted as non-obvious. Several guns out there have had modular magwells, and I know the maxrounds drum came with mix & match feed towers, so that's a prior art.

It would be infringing to make that magazine, but I don't see how it would infringe to USE the magazine in another gun. i.e. buy a mossberg mag and fit a gun to it. Or alter mossberg mags, and obliterate the logos. That would be under first sale doctrine and whatnot. Obliterating the logos would prevent some BS brand dilution claim. 

 

If the gun is modified to take the mag, and that doesn't require any unique features covered by a new patent, then that's not a violation. I would say that any patent claiming features like having the ability to engage locking lugs with a latch or two are going to be weak.

I haven’t actually read that patent fully.  If it says it makes the mag cheaper to make that is definitely incorrect.  Making a single piece body mag from a single mold vs making two pieces from two different molds and then the time to screw them together is definitely not cheaper.  I’m actually surprised that patent was issued also.  

There would be nothing wrong with modifying existing mags or modifying existing guns to use the mags as long as the upper section of the mag remained in place.  That is the double stack and is where the magic takes place.  If it is replaced with a different part that works the same way it would be infringing on the double stack patent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 7:36 PM, gunfun said:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/61/2a/e6/6529e1d1db24b3/US8756846.pdf

I looked through this patent, which admittedly I didn't fully parse out. As near as I can tell by casual reading, it's only real claim is having a conversion receiver, not modifying an existing receiver. It's scope is for conventional shotguns, and it very broadly names every normal feature of any firearm, right down to firing pins and feed ramps. Those are clearly extraneous to the claim. 

Given that box fed factory pump guns have come from both Italy and China in factory configurations some of which I think go back to the 1970s, that otherwise exactly meet the description, it can't be an enforceable claim that making a new gun which takes box mags and is otherwise a conventional tube based shotty.

The key to the black ace patent is using an elongated receiver and that it takes all original parts of the gun in stock condition with the exception of the mentioned modified parts like the slide and bolt...  The elongated receiver was needed to make room for a thicker polymer magazine.  

 All those previous mentioned guns used a standard length receiver and thin walled metal mags.  Like the new 870DM.  The mag walls are thin enough that an elongated receiver wasn’t required.  

The 590M has an elongated receiver like stated in the above patent.  It also has the mentioned modified parts.   It takes all the stock parts as well with the exception of the barrels.  The barrel from a 590 will not fot a 590M.  There is a shell sweep on the 590M’s bolt and a clearance channel is required in the barrel for it to lock.  The barrel of the 590M not being a standard 590 barrel is why the 590M is not infringing on the above patent.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 7:10 PM, saltydecimator said:

Gunfun, You are a lawyer right?  

Interesting points you bring up, except I have t read everything cause I haven’t gone to the patent links. The legalese makes my head hurt

I think so.

Also, I think that is kind of the point of a weak patent. Make it confusing to scare off work arounds.

 

Mike- if I was reading it right the patent claim was that two pieces meant less tooling to make more mags for more type of guns. If the complicated molds worked for a universal part, then all you would need to do is mold new feed towers. Whether that is actually cheaper, or just in theory could be is not necessary for the patent to be valid or not.

Thanks for explaining the elongated receiver bit. That particular patent was a jumble. I also think it is susceptible to challenge based on the fact that all of the solutions claimed really are obvious.

Is the reason that your mossberg mag only fits 2 3/4" shells the limitation of receiver length?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gunfun said:

I think so.

Also, I think that is kind of the point of a weak patent. Make it confusing to scare off work arounds.

 

Mike- if I was reading it right the patent claim was that two pieces meant less tooling to make more mags for more type of guns. If the complicated molds worked for a universal part, then all you would need to do is mold new feed towers. Whether that is actually cheaper, or just in theory could be is not necessary for the patent to be valid or not.

Thanks for explaining the elongated receiver bit. That particular patent was a jumble. I also think it is susceptible to challenge based on the fact that all of the solutions claimed really are obvious.

Is the reason that your mossberg mag only fits 2 3/4" shells the limitation of receiver length?

Right,  the cost of manufacturing doesn’t have anything to do with the validity of the patent.  

I didn’t design the Mossberg mag or a lot of things would be different including the ability to take 3” rounds.  I don’t see any reason that the system couldn’t have been designed to accept 3” rounds.  Not many people use three in rounds in a shotgun of this nature but the option is always nice to have in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto. I think one of the real perks of a mag fed gun is that you can choose whatever shell you want based on what's in it or what it does, rather than how short it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Tromix - Lead Delivery Systems
Dinzag Arms
CHAOS, Inc
Mississippi Auto Arms, Inc
Cobra's Custom
Carolina Shooters Supply
R & R Targets
LONE STAR ARMS
SGM Tactical
Mach 1 Arsenal
K-VAR
C&S Metall-Werkes
American Specialty Ammo
Csspecs Magazines
Phoenix Technology
Evlutionz LLC


  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×