Stoner weapons system.

As a starting point, check out the Wikipedia article on the Stoner 63.

Basically, wrong place at the wrong time.

The USMC tested it extensively against the M1 in 1963-65 at MCRD Parris Island and Quantico, and found that recruits qualified better with it, found its lighter weigh less taxing during training, and in general in was well received by the Marines. However, in the final report on the subject they state (to paraphrase): "...while the merits of the Stoner 63 are many, the US Marine Corps is not at this time prepared to switch calibers from 7.62mm to 5.56mm..."

You have to remember that in 1963 the USMC had just started to get M14s in quantity and the two recruit depots were still using the M1.

Had they known in a few years they would be switching to 5.56mm, whether they wanted to or not, the decision might have been different.

All that said the system did have a few bugs, as the several thousand made were still basically developed prototypes, but with a good development program, those problems could have been flushed out. The biggest hiccup was the self-imposed requirement that any receiver could be altered into any variant with a minimum number of part swapping. This makes the rifle and carbine variants heavier than they needed to be, and some parts of the MG flimsier than desirable. For example, the bolt carries the feed cam roller and sear bent for the belt fed version all the time, and these parts perform no useful purpose in any of the magazine fed versions, and the rear sights in the rifle are detachable because that is where the sear has to pass through the receiver in the MG versions, making the rear sight less rigid.

A more sensible idea would have been to have high % of the parts common, but have two separate receivers, one optimized for the rifle and carbine, and one optimized for the MG versions.

Oh, and the SEALs loved it because it was the only 5.56mm belt fed MG in the inventory at the time, so it was the Stoner or the M60. The various Colt belt fed ARs and the other similar items were all tested in small quantities, and usually returned to the manufacturer after testing.

The Stoner was far too expensive and too complex and it requires extremely careful maintenance to be reliable.
SEAL's were and are absolute fanatics about maintenance and they could keep the guns working well.

The average soldier just wouldn't do the required work to keep it running, and that along with the high cost ended it for the regular military.

We already had rifles and light machine guns. To make one that can do both is like making a sports car that you can take apart and make into a pickup truck.

someguy2800 said:

We already had rifles and light machine guns. To make one that can do both is like making a sports car that you can take apart and make into a pickup truck.

Click to expand...

.....Which would be awesome when you oversleep and you’re late to your deer stand or duck blind.

As already stated, the 63 was a great system for SpecOps who are religious about maintaining their weapons. Some of the REMF's whose M16A1's I had to repair would not have fared so well with the Stoner 63.

dfariswheel said:

The Stoner was far too expensive and too complex and it requires extremely careful maintenance to be reliable.
SEAL's were and are absolute fanatics about maintenance and they could keep the guns working well.

The average soldier just wouldn't do the required work to keep it running, and that along with the high cost ended it for the regular military.

Click to expand...

That is a myth that does not jive with the experience of the USMC.

As stated above the Stoner 63 was evaluated by the USMC at MCRD Parris Island. They had no problem teaching the recruits to maintain the weapons and operate then with proficiency. Similarly, a test and evaluation made up of literally "average" Marines at Quantico field tested it and similarly had no complaints.

I have no idea where that myth came from, but none of the USMC reports on the Stoner state that they were too complex to maintain, or even that they were any more complex than the M1 or M14.

Similarly, none of the Army reports state anything about being "overly complex". They do state that some variants of the Stoner system had more parts than necessary because of the need to switch between types (as I have mentioned above), but nothing of any difficulties in maintaining the weapon.

entropy said:

As already stated, the 63 was a great system for SpecOps who are religious about maintaining their weapons. Some of the REMF's whose M16A1's I had to repair would not have fared so well with the Stoner 63.

Click to expand...

Just to note, the test and evaluation units that did the testing at MCRD and Quantico were carefully picked to show the distribution of both intelligence (measured by both IQ testing and AFQT, [ASFAB]) and body size of the Marines Corps as a whole. The unit at Quantico was similarly assembled, but from Marines from the Fleet.

My Dad was a CO of a company at MCRD and had one of the recruit test platoons. It was a pain in the ass to maintain that platoon, as the bell curve of intelligence and body types had to be maintained, and if an injury occurred resulting in a re-cycle, that recruit had to be replaced with a new exact duplicate in test scores and size.

So, the idea that less that Special Ops couldn't handle the Stoner 63 is also a unsubstantiated myth. The average Marines was more than capable of maintaining it.

Admittedly, I know very little about the Stoner 63. What little I know started with a memoir of a SEAL in Vietnam who used one regularly. That and an Ithaca 37 with a duckbill shot diverter. (another interesting device).

Anyway, the author is very fond of the weapon and stated it was a primary player in gaining fire superiority even when hugely outnumbered. It is no secret the 63 was the predecessor to the present day SAW concept even though SAWs did not see widespread adoption until a few years after the US got out of Vietnam.

The author also states you had to keep it squeaky clean. No mention of complexity. It just had to be done after every op whether it was shot or not. Getting it wet or submerging it even could be bad (especially if your a SEAL and you do a lot of waterborne ops). This makeshift me think that there could be no laxness of weapons maintenance as opposed to the weapon being to complicated to maintain. This can also be a problem with militaries. They need reliability under the worst conditions. Special ops units may be able to get away with a weapon like this as there ops are short by comparison to days long patrols or S&D operations.

The author also stated it could be magazine fed with M-16 mags. He stated that was of consequence though since establishing fire superiority was paramount to the SEALs combat tactics at that place and time so belt fed was the best way to go. He also went on to say that when on an op he was usually laden with up to 800 rounds on 100 round belts draped over the shoulders across the body.

There was an option to the Stoner 63 though. That was the M60E3 which the SEALs also favored. A cut down M60 with a vertical foregrip and no butt stock essentially served the same purpose as the Stoner but in the larger and heavier 7.62 caliber. For the reasons of fire superiority I’m sure the Stoner would get the nod based on the authors experiences.

An now we have the FN minima , er M249 , the rest is all history.

Gordon said:

An now we have the FN minima , er M249 , the rest is all history.

Click to expand...

Actually it is my understanding that the M249 SAW is old news, as well. I believe the Marines and possibly the Army are in the process of replacing the SAW with the M27 IAR, which goes back to more of an M63 Stoner concept, combining the support weapon with the automatic rifle.

in 6.8 no less ! I would just change barrels and bolt and lighten the M249 a bit, but then I am not in R&D

earlthegoat2 said:

Admittedly, I know very little about the Stoner 63. What little I know started with a memoir of a SEAL in Vietnam who used one regularly. That and an Ithaca 37 with a duckbill shot diverter. (another interesting device).

Anyway, the author is very fond of the weapon and stated it was a primary player in gaining fire superiority even when hugely outnumbered. It is no secret the 63 was the predecessor to the present day SAW concept even though SAWs did not see widespread adoption until a few years after the US got out of Vietnam.

The author also states you had to keep it squeaky clean. No mention of complexity. It just had to be done after every op whether it was shot or not. Getting it wet or submerging it even could be bad (especially if your a SEAL and you do a lot of waterborne ops). This makeshift me think that there could be no laxness of weapons maintenance as opposed to the weapon being to complicated to maintain. This can also be a problem with militaries. They need reliability under the worst conditions. Special ops units may be able to get away with a weapon like this as there ops are short by comparison to days long patrols or S&D operations.

The author also stated it could be magazine fed with M-16 mags. He stated that was of consequence though since establishing fire superiority was paramount to the SEALs combat tactics at that place and time so belt fed was the best way to go. He also went on to say that when on an op he was usually laden with up to 800 rounds on 100 round belts draped over the shoulders across the body.

There was an option to the Stoner 63 though. That was the M60E3 which the SEALs also favored. A cut down M60 with a vertical foregrip and no butt stock essentially served the same purpose as the Stoner but in the larger and heavier 7.62 caliber. For the reasons of fire superiority I’m sure the Stoner would get the nod based on the authors experiences.

Click to expand...

A few things:

The .22 caliber barrel is small enough to not be self draining. You have to break the seal of the chambered cartridge in order to get it to drain. The larger .30 caliber bore is self draining, just point the barrel down and the water should run out. It has to do with the weight of water that can get trapped in the barrel and the surface tension of water.

If "the author" stated that the Stoner could use M16 magazines, he really doesn't know much about the Stoner, or the M16, or has a bad memory.



The Stoner used rock-in magazine with a rear catch like an M14, and were full curve, with integral insertion limiters. They are not compatible with M16 magazines at all.

As stated before, NONE of the official test reports on the Stoner by the USMC and Army ever state that there was anything particularly difficult about maintaining the Stoner. And the Army, already committed to the M16, released a very detailed report on all the shortcomings of the Stoner compared to both the M14 and the M16.

One the biggest complaints about the first belt fed versions was the belt came in from the left side, and the ejection port was on the left side. With the 150 round box, or a loose belt the was a good possibility that ejected cases would bounce back into the feed path. This was corrected in the 63A, with the belt feed being switched to the right side.

If fact, here is a quote from the first report on testing at Parris Island:

1. A service and troop test was conducted on the Stoner 63 weapons system to determine its suitability for use within the Marine Corps as the basic weapon and/or weapons system, and to evaluate the operational and organizational concepts, doctrine, tactics, and techniques affected by this weapons system.

2. It was concluded that the Stoner 63 weapons system will be suitable for use within the Marine Corps, upon the correction of several deficiencies, as the replacement system for the present M14, M14(m), M60 and M3A1 weapons.

3. It was further concluded that the operational and organizational, concepts, doctrine, tactics, and techniques of the present Marine Corps rifle squad are not affected by this weapons system. However, the Marine rifle squad armed with the Stoner weapons is significantly more effective than when armed with the M14 and M14(m).

Click to expand...

The deficiencies were mainly the aforementioned left side belt feed-left side ejection problem, a poorly located charging handle on the LMG, poor sling locations, corrosion problems in the gas cylinder, the need for a flair on the magazine well, and beefier furniture, nothing about maintenance.

Hardly a statement about a finicky, hard to maintain, weapon system.

One must remember that in 1965, the USMC was still phasing in the M14, and to start procuring the Stoner 63 (XM22 Rifle, XM23 Carbine, and XM207 LMG) in quantity would have been a severe strain on the Marine Corps budget, as it would be independent of Army procurement. At the time, the Army's procurement of M16 was considered a "one-time-buy" of 100,000 rifles (later bumped up to 200,000), of which a of which a mere 240 were allocated to the Department of the Navy as a whole. The initial fielding concept for the M16 was that it would go to airborne and airmobile units and the heavy divisions would retain the M14. It wasn't until 1966 that the Army changed its mind to make the M16 service standard. Unfortunately, that was after the USMC had made the decision to pass on the Stoner.

Oh, and one more thing...

An M60E3 weighs 19 pounds empty, and Stoner 63 LMG weighs a tad under 12 pounds empty, less than half the weight. As I stated, there was no real option to the Stoner LMG.

Probably my bad memory.

The wealth of knowledge you have on this subject is quite astounding.

Gordon said:

in 6.8 no less ! I would just change barrels and bolt and lighten the M249 a bit, but then I am not in R&D

Click to expand...

The SAW is a bear to haul around. The last version I was issued had a collapsible M4-style stock and a tri-rail forend, and weighed over 20 pounds empty, even with the carbine barrel. It would have to be lightened a lot to be practical. I think SOCOM has the Mk 46, which is a lightened SAW. The magazine well can be removed--it is unreliable with the STANAG M16 mags and seldom used. It is probably more practical to just add a slightly heavier contour barrel to a carbine adapted to fire from an open bolt. The 5.56 from a belt fed weapon makes marginal sense any way you slice it. The round doesn't have enough penetration or range to be a viable support weapon.

I heard the 6.8 has been FINALLY chosen as the round for the next SAW, a good decision , I guess ! Logistics tho ,

I think there's a market for a semiautomatic Stoner 63 today, considering that FN's semi M249, priced at $8,000, is selling. The Robinson Expedition rifle was an attempt at this, but it failed, probably because it wasn't close enough to the original, and Robinson didn't provide adequate followup. A new Stoner 63 would have to be as close to the original as possible while making it semiautomatic, and also have all the parts available to make all the different versions (rifle, carbine, LMG, etc.). If they could keep it below $8,000, I would probably buy one.

The MK46 and MK 48 put all those old MG's to shame.