top of page
Wave

Proprietary Parts!



All of these 1911 magazines are listed as having the same application, but obviously the follower, feed lips, and even bodies are different. Which one will really work in your gun?

I recently saw a forum post in which someone was looking for a "this vs that" answer and one of the responses listed option B as disadventageous due to proprietary parts. This triggers a rant that I've been meaning to do for a while because I'm not sure folks understand what "propietary" really mans both literally and what it means for gun owners.


Definition: Oxford Languages defines Proprietary as, "relating to an owner or ownership.

"the company has a proprietary right to the property""

Let's think about that for a moment. All the word means is that the parts (in our case design) are uniquely owned by the manfacturer. For gun owners this means that they have but one source for those parts, but also just one company taking responsibility for the quality and characteristics of that part. This also means that the part likely has a valid patent protecting it.

Conversely, a part that is not propietary means that it likely once was, but that either others have begun to produce it or the patent has expired, ie. that part has been in production for two decades; a long time in today's age of modernly-advancing technologies.


All of these magazines are "Glock pattern" and yet time and again we've shown one to work in one gun and not in another.

To bind yourself to non-proprietary parts means binding yourself to either products that weren't deemed worth patending when they were created, or binding yourself to technology that is at least 20 years old. Would you make the same commitment for cars, television, phones, medicine, or running shoes? Mankind's ability to design and manufacture has advanced rapidly in the last twenty years. Even manufacturing method relevancy has changed. Metal injection molding once meant weak parts, but that has changed. What we expect plastics to do has changed. Chrome lining rifle barrels used to be the best way to prevent corrosion, even at the cost of consistency, but now we have nitriding and other methods that do a better job and cost less.



Yet expired patents don't always mean doom. Look at what Glock's antiquity has done for us. Because the Gen 3 Glock was such a good set of bones, the aftermarket has been able (at first through need, now through exploration) to do with the platform. There are now several great pistols available at reasonable prices in part because the manufacturers didn't need to develop core elements of the pistol and were able to improve upon a prooven design. Their savings has either been passed on to we the consumers through lower prices or enabled further development with final product prices near the original.

The Ermox Defense X-Fire is another example of a firearm we have thansk to expired patents.
The Ermox Defense X-Fire is another example of a firearm we have thansk to expired patents.

What Do You Think? One one side "proprietary" means currently-owned and defended. "Non-proprietary" is effectively abandoned or expired technology. While the core science of firearms remains relatively unchanged for a few lifetimes, what is your response to hearing the word "propietary"?

To me it means I might have to pay a few dollars more for a magazine or part, and may have to search ahrder to find that part. If I can't find the part I either decide if I can live with the thing as it is, or if the need for somethign different requires going more mainstream.

Yes, I realize this post comes from the mind of a gun guy who loves things that are different or at least attempting to try something new.


323 views6 comments

Recent Posts

See All

6 Comments


This said, you must first understand the concept of "Novel Rights" as defined by the Supreme Court; these are rights not defined in the Bill of Rights directly. The case involves the last opinion penned by Ruth Bader Ginsberg for an unanimous court, before she died.  It considers a case involving an excessive fine caused by civil asset forfeiture of a car following the resolution of a drug case. The excessive fine in of itself was not considered by the Supreme Court, and they explain why.  Basically, the court has previously stated its position on novel applications of right as having been incorporated into the Bill of Rights throughout he Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment:

"Indiana’s suggestion to…


Like

In all candor I fully believe in proprietary as it is key to intellectual property rights and business success, and a key Right of the Individual… as what is considered a Novel Right in Property, and your 5th Amendment Rights. Patents, patent law, offices, and systems are diabolically opposed to the rights of the individual though posing as protectors they are no better than pirates.

Like

Is there anything in the world universal… not really. Not even threads… look at all the types and purposes. Building codes “International” means subject to your local arbitrary rules. Law… well even in the Common Law which the point of balance, certainly not truth. And, the Common Law is only applicable to the British Commonwealth Countries, former Colonies, and Crown Protectorates… yes, our law exists to protect the Individuals Absolute Rights. Rights only derived through the Kings Prerogatives given by God… not by the State nor Parliament or a Congress.


Truth… the Univeral… We learned our leaders fear the People.

In regard to our time in America with the Capitol city fortified against the people.... with their representatives cowering behind…


Like

elsullo2
elsullo2
Dec 09, 2023

I feel that we can thank Ruger Corp. and its stupid stubbornness for encouraging this progress! For decades they REFUSED to offer large capacity magazines to civilians, so an entire industry arose to satisfy that public demand. Even today they refuse to sell common small parts to owners to repair their own guns! Getting a simple firing pin for replacement requires sending in the entire rifle for repair, which is STUPID, especially when factory parts are erratically sized in new guns! Hence the rise of the independent parts marketplace. Now, we can buy all of the separate parts for many weapons independently of the original manufacturer to make our OWN guns. (Nevertheless, I still have bought a coup…

Like
Replying to

Ruger is far from alone… nearly every gun manufacturer wants the gun to fix it, and frowns upon modification. Why is they really do know more than you as a mere owner-user. See they have engineering departments, and what is called institutional experience.. you don’t… unless you’ve been committed or sentenced wherein you should not have a gun in law.

Like

Alan Carr
Alan Carr
Dec 09, 2023

I think I would fall on the side of non-propietary for most things. I work in a field that has equipment that does both and sometimes new means teething problems And in some cases the manufacturer can’t seem to fix issues. No that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want a GEN 12….. but there is something to be said for a product that may not be the new hotness but still gets the job done.

Like
bottom of page