What Would Stoner Do?

tark said:

What would Stoner do? Probably look at this thing, declare that it isn't enough improvement over what he designed over 50 years ago and declare it wasn't worth the bother. I have held and examined very early ARs at the RIA museum, before it closed for renovation. Green plastic, no F/A, no fences around the mag release, no chrome anywhere in the barrel or chamber and the early duckbill flash suppressor. The rifling had a 1-14 twist.

Those guns were very light, not much over six pounds loaded.

Click to expand...

I recently heard Elon Musk say that people typically don't really change their mind, they just die and then new people come along with new ideas.

I think its a cool rifle. Not really my cup of tea but still cool. I've been watching Ian and Karl for years now so i watched the whole process of putting this thing together.

I have a couple of the cavarms ones. They require a narrower than normal trigger group (they made the walls thicker) and “solved” the weak receiver/stock problem by making them one.



One is still new, the other I beat the tar out of, even with the 458 socom and I can say it works and can hold up. Even if it feels goofy.

Great if you want a rifle that is nose heavy, no matter what. I suppose I would recommend one over a carbon 15 and others that still try and get away with a threaded tube and normal internal dimensions.

Jmorris,
I'd be interested in how that lower broke. There is no stress applied to the lower from the upper. The lower provides the fire control for the upper.

I've seen lowers that are attached to 50 BMG uppers with no ill affect after hundreds of rounds.

Mk-211 said:

Jmorris,
I'd be interested in how that lower broke. There is no stress applied to the lower from the upper. The lower provides the fire control for the upper.

I've seen lowers that are attached to 50 BMG uppers with no ill affect after hundreds of rounds.

Click to expand...

Recoil forces are going to be distributed across the whole rifle. Pretty much all guns tend to take a lot of abuse right at that point which is why you see lots of polymer lowers breaking there and wood stocked hunting rifles or shotguns tending to develop cracks in that location. Basically the rifle fires, the buttstock encounters something that stops it (typically your shoulder), and the gun then tries to "fold" at the thinnest point along its axis - typically the grip. This isn't a huge amount of force but applied repeatedly it can add up to enough to form a crack.

Mk-211 said:

Jmorris,
I'd be interested in how that lower broke. There is no stress applied to the lower from the upper.

Click to expand...

I don’t know how that one broke but I did see one break at the exact same location during a 3 gun match around 2006.

You can Google and find more. This one is supposedly taken by a gun store employee that opened a new box to find it had broke during shipping and the box wasn’t destroyed.



This seems to be another point of failure.



Both of those are problems the cavarms ones didn’t seem to have.

tark said:

Wish I had this one.

Click to expand...

Me too, as long as it were legally transferred to me first.

This is about as close as you will get to that without a tax stamp.

Colt SP1. Bought it new in 1974 for $225.

jmorris said:

Me too, as long as it were legally transferred to me first.

Click to expand...

Will never happen. Owned by the Dept. of Defense and the U.S. Army's museum system. They aren't selling. Obviously, the Army does sell surplus guns from time to time, but not NFA guns. The guns in the Army's museum system are NEVER sold. They are either put on display somewhere, or stored at Anniston Depot, awaiting possible distribution.

someguy2800 said:

He is referring to how the M16 platform ended up being substantially heavier than what the original requirements laid down by the army of 6 lbs with a loaded 20 rnd mag. In the interview below Stoner talks about how the AR15 was designed around the weight requirements that were given and how he went to great trouble to meet them, and then the army got a hold of it and kept adding more and more weight which he seams to lament as it went against all the work he put into it.

Click to expand...

You have to be careful about people's recollections, they remember what they want to remember not necessarily reality.

Fortunately, people write reports to document what really happens.

In early 1958, the Army received its first AR-15 from Armalite as part of the Small Caliber High Velocity Program. The weight of the rifle was recorded. It weighed six and a half pounds with a fully loaded 20 round magazine and sling.

It did not meet the accuracy requirement and the new stiffer (heavier) barrel was suggested.

It did not meet the barrel life requirement, a thicker barrel was suggested to help dissipate heat was suggested.

It did not meet the flash and smoke requirement and a flash hider was suggested.

It did not meet the durability requirement due to parts breakage, various improvements to parts were suggested that increased the mass of these parts.

This is not the Army being uncooperative, or adding weight just because they want to, but reporting the limitations of physics and material science*. A perfect example of this is the butt stock and hand guard nearly tripled in weight to keep them from breaking during troop trials. The end result was something that was durable enough to survive a 6,000 endurance test, and the abuse of a soldier on the bayonet course.

The Army asked for a six pound rifle for the same reason you ask $15,000 for that used car, as a starting point for the negotiation, not because you think you are going to get it for that price. The Army knew full well the first six pound rifle wasn't going to be fit for service and would gain weight during development. But, if they asked for a seven and half pound (the weight of the M16A1 at adoption) right off the bat, after development they would have had something that weighed as much as the M14.

____________________
* The only "added extra" that the Army insisted on was the forward assist. The total weight that added to the design was 0.05 pounds, less that an ounce.

i don't recall what it weighed but the M-16 I was issued in 1969 was pretty light. Much lighter than any modern AR I have handled. I can understand why they made them heavier but I would be happy if I had one like that.
I don't know about a plastic lower. I guess I'd look for a retro style before I would go plastic.

Most of the weight in an AR is the barrel, followed by the BCG and buffer.

I've built a few with a 14.5" barrel and pin/welded flash hider. This one has a Faxon Gunner barrel with a Centurion rail and weighs under 5 lbs with the optic

Mk-211 said:

Jmorris,
I'd be interested in how that lower broke. There is no stress applied to the lower from the upper. The lower provides the fire control for the upper.

I've seen lowers that are attached to 50 BMG uppers with no ill affect after hundreds of rounds.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is a fair amount of stress in the lower. The recoil force has to go through the receiver extension, but the upper applies the recoil load through the front pin only.

This means the lower receiver sees a good bit of bending stress at the horn for the extension.

Caliber .50 uppers tend to allow the upper to contact the horn of the lower so the recoil load goes straight down to the stock without trying to bend the horn.

MarshallDodge said:

Most of the weight in an AR is the barrel, followed by the BCG and buffer.

I've built a few with a 14.5" barrel and pin/welded flash hider. This one has a Faxon Gunner barrel with a Centurion rail and weighs under 5 lbs with the optic
View attachment 1084935

Click to expand...

I think I am the only one on the planet that doesn't like ultra lightweight rifles but if I was inclined to do a lightweight build I think think is a much better route. Their is too much funkiness in the KE Arms lowers. With a standard build you retain commonality of parts, strength of an aluminum lower, and can still have an ultra lightweight rifle.

ECVMatt said:

I think I am the only one on the planet that doesn't like ultra lightweight rifles but if I was inclined to do a lightweight build I think think is a much better route. Their is too much funkiness in the KE Arms lowers. With a standard build you retain commonality of parts, strength of an aluminum lower, and can still have an ultra lightweight rifle.

Click to expand...

I'm not much of a fan either but this one has a purpose as I have a pack that will hold a 14.5" AR with the stock collapsed for travel purposes. Throw in a laptop, a couple changes of clothes, along with the other travel items, and I can walk in and out of a hotel or even down the street without attracting a lot of attention.

The M4 was originally going to have a lighter barrel . . . (note the bottom that is marked "Production")



In it's original production configuration the 14.5 in barrel M4 weighed 6-1/4 lbs with another 1 pound for the fully loaded 30 round magazine.

Mk-211 said:

Jmorris,
I'd be interested in how that lower broke. There is no stress applied to the lower from the upper. The lower provides the fire control for the upper.

I've seen lowers that are attached to 50 BMG uppers with no ill affect after hundreds of rounds.

Click to expand...

Many times "plastic" can't do the job of metal unless the design is changed. Like mentioned, recoil and action cycling forces go into the buffer tube.

Here's an old pic showing how the CavArms lower is beefed up compared to another polymer lower. It's not just that the CavArms (or WWSD) lower is one piece, which is important, but it also has more material added in that critical area.

View attachment 1085146

A forward assist or reciprocating charging handle is a must for me so this rifle is a no-go.

-Stan

stanley_white said:

A forward assist or reciprocating charging handle is a must for me so this rifle is a no-go.

-Stan

Click to expand...

You can buy the lower separately and add the upper of your choice.
https://www.brownells.com/rifle-par...-2021-complete-lower-receiver-prod141119.aspx

I like the concept overall but I'm still not sold on the carbon fiber handguard there's a "budget" version with a super low weight aluminum handguard that seems pretty nice to me but you lose out on all the ambi controls and the jo silent buffer neat thought experiment and cool to see it result in a commercial product.