The REVOLUTIONRY Taiwanese Drop-in Trigger T86 Patents

A patent attorney from Taiwan was kind enough to locate the patent for the T86 rifle’s drop-in trigger. If you missed my previous post about the T86, a revolutionary rifle that featured the first AR-15-style drop-in trigger as well as an innovative gas system, read more about it here. Read more about the Mossberg Lawsuit here.

t86 rifle trigger

According to the patent documents, the T86 Drop-in Trigger was designed by a Mr. DE­-HUA LI who was working for the 205th Armory of Combined Service Forces. The 205th is the Taiwanese military armory where most, if not all, Taiwanese government small arms research takes place.

t86 trigger patent1 t86 trigger patent 2

The revolutionary aspect of the trigger is that it was a drop-in trigger designed to make it easier for the rifle to be serviced. The actual trigger mechanism itself closely resembles a select-fire M16 trigger group. There is the M16-style semi-auto disconnector, the burst-disconnector, the burst rachet and the auto sear. The selector is the only “pin” that holds the trigger in place. It looks very similar to a M16 selector.

The full patent documents can be seen below …

  Taiwanese T86 Rifle-Taiwan Patent-TW409847-Published on 2000 Oct 21

  TW409847-Translated by Google Translate

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • PK

    Mossberg’s legal team seems to have stepped on a landmine over this whole debacle. Thank you very much for so much research into this, once again TFB proves itself to be one of the very few real outlets publishing original research into current events as far as firearms go, and this is certainly no exception.

    Keep up the great work!

    • m-cameron

      Yeah…mossberg really doesn’t care……99% of the people who buy guns is never going to hear and or care about this……and are going to go on buying mossberg like nothing happened

  • gunsandrockets

    No linky to T86 story.

  • Jess Johnson

    I think the H&K or AUG tigger pack ideas predated the T86. The T86 is a copy of the AR combined into a drop in. The CMC patent was for “Modular trigger group for firearms and trigger group installation method”, requiring the use of a modular group and the install method. All they did was say hey, let’s make a drop in trigger that uses standard pins without modifying the lower (UNLIKE THE T86). If anything, the T86 would fail in the US for prior art due to all sorts of other trigger packs.

  • Mutenri

    I wish Taiwan would start importing civilian models of the T86. They’re rumoured to been very good quality and performed more reliably than AKs and run of the mill ARs in military acceptance tests.

    • Friend of Tibet

      I have several Taiwan Friends who serverd in Military and have used T86 many times, the feedback weren’t great. Usually due to very poor maintenance and very corrosive weather. They usually think M4A1 is a much much better weapon compare to T86. You get the idea.

  • m-cameron

    Point being?……its a taiwanese patent…..not an American patent…. don’t like what mossberg is doing? Too bad, it’s their legal right.

    • Mike N.

      For something to be patentable, it has to be (among other requirements) novel. That requirement does not stop at the US border. You can’t re-patent something that was already invented overseas.

      • m-cameron

        well seeing as Mossberg already owns the patent on it…..meaning the patent office has already looked into it, and determined the patent mossberg owns was valid

        • MeaCulpa

          The US patent office isn’t exactly known for its in depth, ex officio, look at prior art or the function of the application before the granting of a patent.

        • Chazz Matthews

          Parents can be invalidated if new claims, evidence comes to light.

      • Dragonheart

        It is not the duty of the Patent Office to determine that something is unique, that requirement is placed on the entity requesting the patent and that is what patient attorneys are supposed to do. Mossberg may have opened up a can of worms for themselves as it would not be the first broken patient.