Eugene Stoner & Armalite offered Ruger the rights to make the AR-15?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hammer059

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
630
Location
Lebanon County, PA
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/29/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-ruger/

Read this article a little bit ago. See #3. I had never heard this before, and found it interesting. However, when I did a google search to try and find more info about it, I couldn't find much of anything.

Anyone have any references or links with more information about this? I like reading about this stuff. I'd be curious as to why Ruger turned it down.
 
Why they turn down the offer is easy. 1) In 1960, Ruger was not interested in becoming a military contractor, 2) in 1960, the AR-15 had little civilian appeal, and 3) in 1960, the AR-15 was somewhat of a dark horse in the military weapons field
 
Considering Ol Bill's stance on "assault weapons" I'm not the least bit surprised by this
 
its too bad though, eugene stoner had two superior designs that seemingly got no attention at all, the AR-18 and stoner 63.. but hey, thats the bureaucracy for you
 
Most of America was indulging themselves in doing nothing to rock the boat. The Korean War was over and it was a calm time with nothing more than headlines to worry people. The economy was stable and they were enjoying the status of having pulled off WWII with the resulting advancements from that being assimilated into their life.

Dont' forget it wasn't the age of rock and roll - that was kids music mostly relegated to a few stations or a sampling during the broadcast day. People were focused on the adult view of sustaining the status quo - not overthrowing it. Big name singers dominated, not juvenile bands. Large ornate cars, not small sporty fast one. Mahogany and Bronze, not Danish Modern and plastic. The old downtowns were in full swing, you walked Main Street and went to movie theaters still, not sat glued to a TV. It only had one or two channels anyway. It was about AM, and the top 40 was just that, anything the made the top 40 was played. You heard as much big band, crooner, and country as anything else.

Kids walked to school or rode their bikes. One car families - if. Buses and subways were relatively safe.

People were looking to figure out how to get ahead in life doing what they saw around them and few questioned the rules. It was organized and pleasant although very unequal in some regards. Nonetheless - you played by the rules.

Not hard to figure out at all. It was the peak of the Great White Hunter sporting a large bore bolt action, the cheaper lever gun in the woods deer hunting, revolvers were the norm, with just a sprinkling of auto loaders. One in ten had been in service and you could ask a polite question at a family gathering about the military and get an INFORMED answer from a veteran on the spot.

To understand why Ruger would pass on it isn't hard - what we need to understand is why Colt saw anything in it. They were just as entrenched in the same system as Ruger, with even larger police and civilian sales to meet. They had nothing even closely resembling the AR in their product lineup.
 
Justin,

The AR18 did get some attention, just very little in the US.

Burt Miller told me one of the main ideas behind the AR-18 was to sell liscensing and some tools. He said that any country with the capability of building car bumpers could have become an AR-18 producer.

The AR-18 did attract the attention of the Infantry School at Ft. Benning but the example tested had parts breakage in the testing and the AR 15s it was tested against did not.

That a basically very early one off example might have issues is not a surprise.

The AR-180 I took to Ft. Sill in 1981 attracted a lot of attention, I even snuck it onto an Army rifle range and shot the daylight known distance relay with it. Amazing what a older than normal 2nd LT can get away with if he acts like he knows what he is doing.......shot possible BTW. 25 meters to 300 with M 193 ball.

It actually attracted more attention at the Gun Club range on post and never failed to get attention when I took it there. The Artillery folks at Sill really liked the folding stock and when I told some that shot it about the AR-18S with the shortened barrel and forearm they were positively excited. I also found it fit nicely in a few places in an M-109 series SP gun turret.

Do keep in mind that the AR-180 inspired the Charter Industries rifle made in Singapore, the Leder in Austrailia, a thing I seem to recall was called the T65 in Costa Rica and they were made by Howa in Japan (until issues with the Japanese Constitution stopped them) and Sterling in the UK. They influenced more modern guns as well. Oh and the "Armalite" in the IRA song is an AR-180, appearently a major IRA coup was stealing a large truck shipment of them from Sterling.

I was disappointed with the New Armalite folks' AR-180 as it was not really an AR-180. The only feature I liked about the new gun was the ability to use un altered AR-15 mags. Finding working mags for original AR-180s is a pain and a bit expensive or if you cut your own AR15 mags a bit frustrating.

What folks have said about Bill Ruger here are true. When the Mini-14 was first announced it was to be for LEO and Military sales only. Later when civilian sales seemed the only way to save the project it was shipped with only the flush fitted five round magazine and factory 20 rounders were LEO only.

-kBob
 
yes, bill ruger is the definition of a "fudd"

but i know all about the AR-18s history, i like the rifle but one of the things i liked most about it is its simplicity in design.. i mean it could have used a better bolt design to keep with the simplicity but that upper receiver for example would be so easy to make yourself as well as the carrier and a lot of other major components
 
I would question the veracity of the tale.

Stoner developed the AR FOR ArmaLite. Not just on his own time in his garage.
As such, the design would have belonged to ArmaLite, not Stoner, and Stoner would have been in no position to offer it to anybody himself.
Denis
 
To understand why Ruger would pass on it isn't hard - what we need to understand is why Colt saw anything in it. They were just as entrenched in the same system as Ruger, with even larger police and civilian sales to meet. They had nothing even closely resembling the AR in their product lineup.
Colt saw a military/police market for it, and was in that line of work...
 
The word "fudd" is a derogatory term.
In 1960, no military wanted the AR-15, including the U.S. military. The U.S. military didn't want it in 1964 when McNamara decided they'd adopt it whether they wanted it or not.
"...wasn't the age of rock and roll..." Was too. snicker.
 
In the 1960's Ruger was strictly a civilian sporting firearms company.
They had no intention of getting into police or military sales.

Other then some mostly foreign sales of the military type GB-Mini-14 Ruger has never entered the military field and appears to have no desire to do so.

As above, back then Armalite was a division of Fairchild and Stoner had no input to who the Armalite designs were to be sold.
 
its too bad though, eugene stoner had two superior designs that seemingly got no attention at all, the AR-18 and stoner 63.. but hey, thats the bureaucracy for you

Well aside from the relative inaccuracy and sometimes crude manufacture of the AR-18 (it was designed to be a budget rifle for nations that couldn't afford the AR-15 or set up the advanced manufacturing facilities necessary to manufacture it), or the fact that the AR-18 shared the same basic mag design as the AR-15 (which is the source of the vast majority of malfunctions in that rifle).

Or the fact that the 63 never proved that reliable in its limited military service and it was a design for which heavy and regular lubrication was even more critical compared to the AR-15.

Both the AR-18 and Stoner 63 designs offered design elements that greatly influenced military arms to follow, but neither were really all that great on their own.
 
Last edited:
The definitive history of the AR15/M16 rifle is in The Black Rifle by R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell.

The change of ownership from Fairchild to Colt is covered in chapter 4, A Mid-stream Change of Horses:

Fairchild's president Richard Boutelle often argued with the firms directors on the issue of getting into the gun business per se, to no avail. Indeed, back in the summer of 1958 with hopes for AR-10 sales efforts abroad still high and with the Army's enthusiasm for the AR-15 as yet undampened by water-in-the-bore, Boutelle had made an impassioned plea to turn the Armalite plant in California into a real assembly line, to manufacture the AR-10 and AR-15 themselves. The directors had again refused to finance such a venture.

As noted earlier, the Baltimore-based firm of Cooper-MacDonald Inc. represented the Dutch made AR-10 in Asia. In fact, Robert W. "Bobby" MacDonald was something of a specialist in Southeast Asia, having lived and worked there for a number of years. In addition to the AR-10, Cooper-MacDonald had since 1948 represented Colt handguns and later Remington rifles, ammunition and shotguns in that part of the world.

Meanwhile, Fairchild's aircraft business was in serious financial difficulty, and the parent firm was increasingly unable to support the significant investment which the AR-15 program required. Mr. Boutelle accordingly gave Cooper-MacDonald the added task of finding, for a fee, someone to take on the job of tooling up and making the AR-15 under icense. Bobby MacDonald naturally mentioned the matter to his friend, Fred Roff, then sales director and later president of Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Co. of Hartford, Connecticut. Roff was interested, but like most of the other traditional New England gunmakers, Colt's was facing ever-heavier financial losses in the dried-up civilian and military markets of the post-Korean war period. An initial 20-year "letter of understanding" between Colt's and Cooper-MacDonald was put on paperas early as September 22, 1958 regarding "the ArmaLite matter", but it was some months before any actual money could be put together.

As Fairchild's need to salvage some of it's ArmaLite investment grew keener, Colt's veered ever closer to actual bankruptcy. The sobering fact was that the manufacturing plant had not been updated in virtually a century. The firm was at length purchased by a New York financier for merely the value of the inventory of firearms already manufactured but still unassembled.

Ironically the final signing of the arrangement between Colt's new directors and the newly-formed Fairchild Stratos Corporation coincided almost to the day with General Taylor's formal veto of further .22 caliber rifle purchases by the Army. Interestingly, Colt's paid Fairchild Stratos a lump sum of only $75000 plus a royalty of 4 1/2% on all future production for the rights to the AR-15, while for its good offices in putting the deal together Colt's paid Cooper-MacDonald $250,000 plus a royalty of 1% on future production.

Nothing there about Ruger, so I would think that the Daily Caller article is wrong. Urban legend. ArmaLite was the brainchild of two Fairchild Aircraft executives who were avid hunters and "gun nuts", George Sullivan and Richard Boutelle. In 1954 they formed the ArmaLite division of Fairchild Aircraft to explore uses of aircraft technology in small arms development.

Sullivan hired his brother in law, Charles Dorchester to be the plant manager. They also hired Eugene M. Stoner as chief engineer. Stoner never owned the AR-15 design so I doubt that he ever tried to sell it to Ruger or anyone else.
 
He couldn't have tried to sell a design he didn't own. :)
Denis
 
"Well aside from the relative inaccuracy ....."

Inaccuracy compared to what?

In the mid 1970s a couple of the LEO magazines ran articles on the AR-180 claiming it to be more accurate than the SP1 AR-15s. It was one of the factors of my choosing the AR-180 over the AR-15 at that time.

It was certainly no less accurate than any XM-16 E1, M-16 A1 or SP1 I had used before buying the AR-180.

Now compared to say an A2 or later or something like a Colt HBAR yes it is not as accurate, but those did not exist at the time.

I loathed the AR15 thanks to my US Army experiences with them. The AR-180 had a "real" gas system not something from a failed French WWI semi auto or a short run Swede rifle. One could actually fold the stock and it folded in the correct direction. I loved the scope mounting system of the AR-180 and for me it seemed vary repeatable when removing and re installing the scope.

I agree that the magazine was an issue.....see my long post.....especially after my AR15 military experiences. Again there was not much else out there at the time the AR-18 came out.

-kBob
 
Other then some mostly foreign sales of the military type GB-Mini-14 Ruger has never entered the military field and appears to have no desire to do so.

Mainly true. Though I'd add they did design and build the Ruger MP9 submachine gun for military and LE sales. The MP9, as far as I know, was not adopted by anyone and they didn't produce very many of them.

They've also sold handguns to the US military (Ruger P95).1
 
Quoted from above post by Justin22885:

"bill ruger is the definition of a "fudd""

That's an interesting comment. If you don't mind my asking, how well did you know Bill Ruger?
 
its too bad though, eugene stoner had two superior designs that seemingly got no attention at all, the AR-18 and stoner 63.. but hey, thats the bureaucracy for you
Looking at the AR-18 and the current British bull pup rifle, there appears to be paternity. The Brits have reworked the bull pup a couple of times, and it still didn't do well in the sand box. They appear to be going with a Canadian version of the AR-15/M-16/M-4.
 
Looking at the AR-18 and the current British bull pup rifle, there appears to be paternity. The Brits have reworked the bull pup a couple of times, and it still didn't do well in the sand box. They appear to be going with a Canadian version of the AR-15/M-16/M-4.
are you trying to suggest the L85 proves AR18s arent reliable?
 
In 1964 most adults were Fudds, in their choice of firearms and their choice of music. The myth of the large caliber main battle rifle was entrenched - the Salvo Project wasn't common knowledge. The logistics of the Army were still biased to supporting the status quo from the last war - as usual. We make that mistake every time and it's now battle doctrine to realize we aren't marching into the next conflict with what we need. We accept that change will be necessary.

What the bureaucracy of 1964 wanted was less change to control what it was doing better. Given the obvious problems with the M14 and it's use - a full auto that couldn't be used that way - something else had to happen. It was apparent to the Subject Matter Experts there were problems with larger caliber guns and had been for decades. They put all they had into the effort - and that is why they demanded a intermediate caliber version of the AR10.

Stoner didn't even work on the M16, his assistants scaled it down. It very much was an Armalite project, not Stoner so much. Armalite responded to the DOD's request for a weapon that fit what they forecast would be needed, and they got what they wanted. It worked just fine in the initial years - at a rate of under 100,000 rifles a year, defects and stoppages were rare. The early years were doing fine and field reports coming back showed the tactical results were outstanding - soldiers would shoot it a lot more in combat, they had enough ammo to sustain the rate of fire, and more enemy were hit.

And most of those advisors were listening to country - not rock - while they were there. Rock and roll was city kids music for middle class wastrels, Baby Boomers spoiled by well meaning parents who suffered enough thru the Depression and WWII.

Any problems with the M16 came when McNamara dictated a 4X increase in production - plus the Ball powder issue. That train wreck was allowed by entrenched Battle Rifle bureacrats in the military who forgot who was fighting on the front lines. Fudds can be dangerous to your health, especially when they are accountants or "logistics" managers. They refused to change and thought we could fight Vietnam the same way we did the last two wars.

We are still fighting the mindset of those who aren't knowledgeable and who have a fantasy notion about times they didn't live thru. Rock and Roll? Check the sales charts and see when it finally became the dominant music. It happened much later than many think. Especially when they just prefer to remember things that way.

The adults were in charge then, and woe be to them, they got some stuff wrong. As usual. No generation is spared that. We are having the exact same issues with the AR pistol because of it - too many support the NFA and fewer still care to think about exactly how the application can fit. They just make derogatory remarks over something they won't ever accept because it disturbs their carefully constructed version of how life is "supposed" to be.

Funny how we now have Fudds who shoot AR15's but won't accept progress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top