Gene Stoner: Legend vs. Reality

[Badger Arms]

I wonder if your statement is really true though, that the AR18 or Stoner 63 would have been better weapons, had money / development been thrown at them early on - do you really suppose that today, there'd be 400 companies selling AR18 variants or Stoner 63 variants, rather than 400 companies selling AR15 variants, had that development been done?

This is my expert (self-proclaimed of course) opinion... The Stoner 63 was more the 'style' for the US Army and Marines being chunks of steel. The Army at the time was spinning their wheels trying to find a "one gun for everything" solution to various problems. They wanted a super-gun that fired flechettes and grenades at the same time. Stoner rightfully saw that what was NEEDED was one gun that could be altered to do everything much like the SOPMOD and SCAR rifles today. Soldiers can tailor their guns to their own individual needs.

The Stoner 63 was and still is unrefined. Problems such as runaway full-autos and parts breakage plagued the SEALs when they fielded Stoners, but they were able to adapt through training. The fixes, if desired, would not have been that difficult. When it was fielded by the Marines, they found it inferior in its then-current form to the M16. And for good reason. The initial problems with the M16 had been largely mitigated through engineering and/or training and the M16 was in full production with HUGE contracts being issued. To waste money on another rifle in the middle of the war would have been ridiculous and wasteful...

Think back to the Beretta 92. In my opinion, it was a mediocre weapon and I believe history has shown that it was not as good as the SIG it beat out... but what HAPPENED in the public was an obsession with the Beretta 92. Hollywood put Beretta's in the hands of Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson and everybody had to have one. It was the Bees Knees. There was a halo effect and other similar designs were suddenly in vogue.

Much the same with the AR-15. Popularity surged right alongside an severe uptick in movies with M16's in them. That's what the Army was using, it must be good. Combine that with enough soldiers and Marines coming back with experience and knowledge and, boom, it's popular.

So, YES, I think whatever gun the US Army or Marines eventually selected WOULD have been as popular as the AR-15 is today. The AR-15/M16 was "good enough" and remains so. As it turns out, the AR-18 was widely copied and all variety of its unique features live on in production today.

 

[TeamRush]

Obviously, what ever I comment on is going to be deleted.
Seems I'm missing TWO posts already on this thread....

Anyway, MISSION SPECIFIC TO&E has had unusual firearms for many years, and anyone that was ever in the military knows that...

From trainers/aggressors using AK's and Russian looking uniforms to special operations units working outside the country.

European, especially Eastern European operations used Belgium Brownings (P-35) instead of US Military issue 1911 or M-9 US Issue.
They often carried M-45 Sub guns
(we called them "Carl Gustav's" because M-45 meant something else to US forces)
And P-35 pistols instead of MP5's and M-9's marked 'US ARMY'... Since often times the special operations teams weren't supposed to be where they were working, it was a REALLY BAD IDEA to be carrying weapons marked 'PROPERLY OF US GOVERNMENT'

That also doesn't cover the Carl Gustav designed recoilless rifle we used in Operations all over central and north Africa and the middle east...
Still being used by US Rangers, Marines and Special Operations.

As for AR-10, I carried one for the first time training with NATO troops from Finland.

I carried one in Pakistan and Afghanistan the FIRST time we were there...('82-'85)

And I carried one in Egypt and Israel both during 'Training' in both countries.
I was 'Designated Marksman' in the unit we were training with for the operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Egyptians and 'Palestinians' are scared to death of the AR-10 in Israeli hands, and for good reason.
It's a solid 800 yard rifle, and can service most needs out well beyond that mark.

If you were in the military during the FIRST trip to the middle east, Pakistan, Afghanistan, an ill fated rescue attempt in Iran in the early 80's,

Or do even a little bit of research,

You will find out there were 'US ADVISERS' in most of the Central & North African countries,
And in much of the middle east at that time.

Arma-Lite made a 'Rhodesian Special' AR-10 intended for 'Desert Warfare' that was a real gift to AR fans in the 'Dry Places'...
A quick check of the map will tell you where 'Rhodesia' was, (renamed Zimbabwe now).

In Central/South America operations, special operations troops and 'Training/Advisers' often carried FN/FAL rifles.
Personally, I prefer a G-3 over FN/FAL, but that's my personal preference.
I saw too many of the FN's fail in service in the dusty places, so I wasn't about to carry one in jungle conditions.

Many of the special operations troops in the middle east carry FN rifles right now.
It's VERY HARD to see any of the 'Operator' teams that aren't carrying a variety of rifles, including FN/FAL and others.

The FN has been called "The Right Arm Of The Free World",
But that line was lifted from a Canadian reporter in 1985 and was used to describe the M-16, or in most African or European countries, it's called 'Arma-Lite', not 'M-16'.

Personally,
I prefer something larger in a handgun than a 9mm projectile.
I still use a .45, but I use a Glock like the special ops guys often do...

Most 'Sand Box' hunters dislike the M-9 or USP.
Double stack .45 ACP, like Glock or sandbox version of Springfield Armory .45 ACP,

And for Jungle, nothing beats a 14" or 16" M-16 Carbine and a Glock in .45 ACP.

For open sand box operations, the AR-10 works just great, and a .45 ACP for side arm.
M-4 or MP-5 make for good House to House clearing weapons.

And just for reference, I was military for 16 years,
And I work for Crane Navel Surface Warfare Operations Center.

Right now, my job is evaluating the latest version of the AR-10 rifle, and other small arms, for Naval Special Operations troops.
I'm an engineer/machinist by trade, and an armor/gunsmith by choice.

If you would care to take some classes with me,
http://www.copperheadroaddft.com/home
We can teach you the same firearms training as the 'Special Operations' units use...
If you have enough money for the classes...

Now, go ahead and edit/delete this post also...
Obviously, someone here with 'Moderator' powers doesn't want a rational conversation or opposing view points, no matter who it's from...

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Housekeeping

TR,

You've had one short, signal-free, argumentative post removed.

Nothing else.

Passion is fine. Personal attacks and all-noise posts are not.

Present the facts, argue the facts, and your posts will stay.

Sling mud, make personal accusations, foment emotional static, and they'll be deleted.

Carry on.

P.S. -- "Navel" is a belly button. "Naval" has to do with navies and things at sea.​

 

[FlyinBryan]

this has been a funny thread for me.

on one hand, it hasnt set well with me that the way i thought things were, was not exactly the way things were.

on the other hand, to be honest, i have learned more about the birth (or adoption) of some of the design features on one of my favorite rifles.

although,,,,,i think the fact that i own firearms from the brains of john browning (my 1911) and my garand (see my signature) helps me to view the subject with a little less bias than i might otherwise.

i said it earlier, and i will admit it again, when i first read this thread i felt like badger just ran over my new puppy, but the more i looked into it, the more i realized, he aint really off base with his opinion. there was indeed a system very similar.

do i think stoner probably played a very big part (if not the biggest) of improving it, and more importantly putting it at the forefront of the united states military? ya probably.

the politics of such an undertaking really should be viewed as a comparable accomplishment as the rifle itself, even if he did have friends in high places.

 

[Badger Arms]

If you would care to take some classes with me,

I decline. Thanks for the offer. To be taught by somebody unwilling to learn is an exercise in futility. Good day.

BA

 

[Art Eatman]

Looks like a closing statement to me.