Badger Arms
Member
Don't get me wrong, the AR-10 was a really great design, as was the AR-16. The problem is, that virtually everything BAD about the AR-15 (later M16) was contributed by Stoner and everything GOOD was contributed by others. Let's run down the features Stoner patented:
1) Gas system: This was purely Stoner's design. It piped the gas along the side of the barrel... Stoner didn't think of putting it on top. The gas system is the most criticized feature on the AR-15/M16. Though it allows a free-floated barrel and is almost half the weight of competing piston designs, it was also finicky with the type of powder used, clogging with powders that traditional pistons didn't skip a beat with. It heated the bolt and bolt carrier excessively and led to premature failure of extractor springs, extractors, and ejector springs.
2) Aluminum magazine: Originally intended as disposable magazines to hold only 20 rounds, Stoner took the logical approach and created a straight-body aluminum magazine with waffle-reinforcements. This didn't last, but the straight mag-well DID last and is the current source of many problems getting magazines that just work.
3) Triangular handguards: Fragile, complex, these had two different halves and, though they had a neat flat surface for shooting off of sandbags, they had tabs around the cooling holes that constantly broke. Of course, they lasted a while and hindsight is 20/20.
4) Trigger mechanism: Somewhat derivative, the narrow receiver in this area made later burst mechanisms more difficult to implement. The 180 degree rotation of the safety is unnecessary and awkward.
5) Cartridge: To be fair to the late Gene Stoner, he never expected the cartridge to be adopted as is, with no further development. His designs were an expedient to prove the concept and meet the specs required by the Army, nothing more. The case is straight, the base too small for good extractor bite, and to meet velocity requirements it operates at too high a pressure.
If you're looking for more Stoner features... uh, sorry. Here are the features that other designers contributed to the AR-15 design.
Mel Johnson:
1) Rotating bolt with multiple lugs. To be fair, though Stoner used these features, Johnson borrowed heavily from the Remington model 8 rifle. First used in the Johnson M1941, the bolt is simple and fairly straightforward to manufacture.
George Sullivan:
1) Foam-filled fiberglass stock. This allowed the rifle to have a strong buttstock with mass that was tough and stiff on the outside but lightweight on the inside. It also provided a cavity for the recoil spring and buffer.
2) Barrel extension. I would argue that this is the true genius of the Armalite rifle. It allows a lightweight aluminum receiver that can be forged, drilled, and tapped, quite simple operations on 7075 T6 aluminum but not good for locking lugs. The lugs need to be hardened. This is a separate sleeve or "barrel extension" that is attached to the soft barrel by means of a pin that also served to index the three parts together. This is a simple, elegant solution to various engineering and production problems
There are others. Fremont contributed the 30-round magazine, Jerry-rigged to work with the straight magwell. Sturtevant contributed the dreaded 3-round burst mechanism and forward assist. Waterman developed the EXCELLENT M16A2 stock that was many times stronger than the original buttstock.
Stoner is on record as saying various things in defense of his work on the AR-15 over the years. Notably, he distanced himself from the magazine. The army specified 20-rounds. Stoner would have designed a fully-curved magazine if he'd had a 30-rd requirement. Also the cartridge. He complained that he didn't expect his design to be a fully-developed production design.
Part of the problem was that other forces were at work. McNamara wanted the M16 and loved Stoner. A bit of hero worship ensued in which if it was Stoner's design, it must have been done right and anybody saying otherwise was a heretic. Sure, there was enough UNFAIR criticism of the M16 out there that there was reason to suspect ALL criticism as unfair. In the end, an underdeveloped and unrefined prototype was put into production with little change from the prototypes. This, also, Stoner criticized. Had 1/10th of the development effort for the M14 or 1/100th that for the Garand had been lavished upon the AR-15 from the onset, the M16 would have been a viable production model without all the difficulties that ensued over the years.
Again, don't get me wrong. Stoner redeemed himself with his later designs and was, in fact, a brilliant designer by all accounts. I have enough respect for some aspects of the AR-15/M16 that I own at least one, I just think the record needs some straightening.
And don't get me started on Kalashnikov.
1) Gas system: This was purely Stoner's design. It piped the gas along the side of the barrel... Stoner didn't think of putting it on top. The gas system is the most criticized feature on the AR-15/M16. Though it allows a free-floated barrel and is almost half the weight of competing piston designs, it was also finicky with the type of powder used, clogging with powders that traditional pistons didn't skip a beat with. It heated the bolt and bolt carrier excessively and led to premature failure of extractor springs, extractors, and ejector springs.
2) Aluminum magazine: Originally intended as disposable magazines to hold only 20 rounds, Stoner took the logical approach and created a straight-body aluminum magazine with waffle-reinforcements. This didn't last, but the straight mag-well DID last and is the current source of many problems getting magazines that just work.
3) Triangular handguards: Fragile, complex, these had two different halves and, though they had a neat flat surface for shooting off of sandbags, they had tabs around the cooling holes that constantly broke. Of course, they lasted a while and hindsight is 20/20.
4) Trigger mechanism: Somewhat derivative, the narrow receiver in this area made later burst mechanisms more difficult to implement. The 180 degree rotation of the safety is unnecessary and awkward.
5) Cartridge: To be fair to the late Gene Stoner, he never expected the cartridge to be adopted as is, with no further development. His designs were an expedient to prove the concept and meet the specs required by the Army, nothing more. The case is straight, the base too small for good extractor bite, and to meet velocity requirements it operates at too high a pressure.
If you're looking for more Stoner features... uh, sorry. Here are the features that other designers contributed to the AR-15 design.
Mel Johnson:
1) Rotating bolt with multiple lugs. To be fair, though Stoner used these features, Johnson borrowed heavily from the Remington model 8 rifle. First used in the Johnson M1941, the bolt is simple and fairly straightforward to manufacture.
George Sullivan:
1) Foam-filled fiberglass stock. This allowed the rifle to have a strong buttstock with mass that was tough and stiff on the outside but lightweight on the inside. It also provided a cavity for the recoil spring and buffer.
2) Barrel extension. I would argue that this is the true genius of the Armalite rifle. It allows a lightweight aluminum receiver that can be forged, drilled, and tapped, quite simple operations on 7075 T6 aluminum but not good for locking lugs. The lugs need to be hardened. This is a separate sleeve or "barrel extension" that is attached to the soft barrel by means of a pin that also served to index the three parts together. This is a simple, elegant solution to various engineering and production problems
There are others. Fremont contributed the 30-round magazine, Jerry-rigged to work with the straight magwell. Sturtevant contributed the dreaded 3-round burst mechanism and forward assist. Waterman developed the EXCELLENT M16A2 stock that was many times stronger than the original buttstock.
Stoner is on record as saying various things in defense of his work on the AR-15 over the years. Notably, he distanced himself from the magazine. The army specified 20-rounds. Stoner would have designed a fully-curved magazine if he'd had a 30-rd requirement. Also the cartridge. He complained that he didn't expect his design to be a fully-developed production design.
Part of the problem was that other forces were at work. McNamara wanted the M16 and loved Stoner. A bit of hero worship ensued in which if it was Stoner's design, it must have been done right and anybody saying otherwise was a heretic. Sure, there was enough UNFAIR criticism of the M16 out there that there was reason to suspect ALL criticism as unfair. In the end, an underdeveloped and unrefined prototype was put into production with little change from the prototypes. This, also, Stoner criticized. Had 1/10th of the development effort for the M14 or 1/100th that for the Garand had been lavished upon the AR-15 from the onset, the M16 would have been a viable production model without all the difficulties that ensued over the years.
Again, don't get me wrong. Stoner redeemed himself with his later designs and was, in fact, a brilliant designer by all accounts. I have enough respect for some aspects of the AR-15/M16 that I own at least one, I just think the record needs some straightening.
And don't get me started on Kalashnikov.
