John Moses Browning vs. Eugene Stoner

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Oh, no doubt, but they'd probably have a hard time wrapping their head around the idea that anyone could order such a device and, with a bit of learning and elbow grease, have one in their garage."

The same could be said for machine tools and guns in our 'advanced' society. Onlookers sometimes gawk like I'm working magicks or something with a small lathe & bench grinder.

TCB
 
SO a manufacturer buddy just before the Gun Owners Perversion Act of 86 came in was trying to sell what he called his "Suite 16"

He set up a basic M16A1ish rifle and offered options that he fit per customer order. One upper was a nice HB flat top with A1 style flash suppressor set up to make putting on and taking off a suppressor of his design and make easy. Another was a HB with bipod intended for a Squad Automatic Rifle which he would supply with a saddle drum (he took a couple so set up out with a New Hampshire National Guard out fit once and claimed he kept up with M60 GPMGs in short burst fire to 300 meters, I tried not to laugh) and of course a "carbine" with 16, 12.5, or 10.5 inch barrel.

He was big on the whole modularity thing, but he sold few Suites.

We took a bunch to a Special Forces training event for Reserves at Camp Blanding once and remarkably the one that got the most interest was the match rifle with suppressor. Of course I was appalled at how many of the guys got excited over a Mark II Sten, when a Patchett, a "Swedish K", and MP5 were right next to the Stench gun in the hands on display. No accounting for taste.

-kBob
 
Justin - The ultimate point with Stoner's design is that it's a purpose-agnostic design that works extremely well for just about anything you could care to do with a rifle.
Justin - Uh, no, it's actually pretty much one of the main points of discussion, and therefore highly cromulent.

I see you not only create neologisms, you promote the use of “The Simpsons” neologisms. You might not be awesome but that makes you at least sorta-awesome. ;)
 
And, since the upper is the expensive part, you don't save much with changing out uppers to keep the cheaper lower rather than owning separate arms for separate jobs.


Pretty much... Im not buying 5k + worth of Leggo's uppers. When I can buy purpose built guns cheaper for any scenario.
 
Pretty much... Im not buying 5k + worth of Leggo's uppers. When I can buy purpose built guns cheaper for any scenario.

That's true if you live in a free state and are dealing only with title I firearms. And yes, I have lowers for all of my uppers. But for someone who lives in an AWB state, they may have a grandfathered gun but not be able to register a new one; the AR gives them the option to have multiple configurations that they would otherwise be unable to lawfully possess. Likewise, with NFA, it allows the same flexibility for only one tax stamp. That applies in spades to machine guns, since a transferable M16 costs north of $15K these days.

I have 3 shorty uppers and only one SBR AR-15. I do have pistol lowers that the other uppers live on because, as has been pointed out, the lower is the cheap part (I used TM 80% anodized lowers @ $40/ea and $80/ea LBKs). But I regularly swap the uppers onto the SBR, because I can only use one at a time; it would make little sense to pay another $400 in stamps to SBR the pistol lowers.

Don't have that kind of flexibility with other guns, even other semi-modular ones like the FAL. Yeah, I could register the FAL upper and then swap out barrels, but that's a whole lot more involved than pin popping on an AR. With most other guns, you're pretty well committed to a given configuration per tax stamp.
 
Yup, Stoner was sure a genius in predicting how his guns' design would give it greater utility in a ban environment :rolleyes: :D

"And, since the upper is the expensive part, you don't save much with changing out uppers to keep the cheaper lower rather than owning separate arms for separate jobs."
This can't be overstated enough. Lots of guns (as in, nearly all of them since the M14) have a trigger unit, which is pretty much all an AR lower is. That aspect of the design was hardly unique, rather, it was becoming the standard just after WWII. The whole upper-swapping conceit becomes really apparent when it comes to configurations that aren't immediately similar (rifles or carbines); practically the entire gun needs to be changed out.

The HK series easily holds the record for modularity, but that feature really never figured into its use in practice; it just made it easier to develop further permutations as required for contracts (no one until modern home-builders was mix-matching MP5, G3, and HK33 parts). I would argue that a large part of the reason the AR cannot be more reconfigurable than it is lies in the magazine well being part of the lower. It immediately boxes you into a very narrow range of ammunition and action-length options. A single HK lower will drop right into all three platforms, and there's even the incredibly rare belt fed variation the HK21. The barrel/magwell/receiver sights are always kind of a matched set, so the pressed/pinned barrel was never a liability to modularity the way a fixed-length magwell is.

I don't think anyone's commented on the professional aspects of Browning vs. Stoner; Browning was a manager overseeing production from concept to design to prototyping to development to early mass-production on some of his projects. I'm not aware Stoner ever did anything beyond collaborating with other brilliant experts in the early design and prototyping phases. He certainly wasn't hopping across the Atlantic to market his design the world over like Browning had to.

TCB
 
John Moses Browning and Eugene Stoner were geniuses. And millions of active duty and veterans like me are glad they both were on our side! Even today you're well equipped with an AR-15 and 1911 or Hi Power, each designed over 50 years ago.

I don't know how to pit them against each other.
 
I see you not only create neologisms, you promote the use of “The Simpsons” neologisms. You might not be awesome but that makes you at least sorta-awesome.

I do what I can. Has "cromulent" shown up in the OED yet? :D

Pretty much... Im not buying 5k + worth of Leggo's uppers. When I can buy purpose built guns cheaper for any scenario.

If that's the case, then why do the ARs dominate so widely in so many fields?
 
Yup, Stoner was sure a genius in predicting how his guns' design would give it greater utility in a ban environment

Never implied that he had such precognition. No one at that time could have predicted something as arbitrary and illogical as an AWB would be foisted on the American people.

Having said that, I don't think we could conclude one way or the other if NFA might have factored into design. Probably not, but probably isn't definitely, and though one could still buy a new MG in the 1950s, the $200 stamp was substantial, equivalent to $1,800 today.

Yes, in our contemporary society, where a complete AR lower can be had for less than dinner and a movie (sad, isn't it?), the ability to swap out uppers seems a dubious benefit. But I say again, that perception changes drastically when you are dealing with NFA or grandfathered receivers. Even the $200 to SBR doesn't seem a lot, but apparently between the cost and the headache, it's enough that relatively few people will bother, to the point that many will pay just a little less to have a muzzle device permanently affixed.
 
Last edited:
"If that's the case, then why do the ARs dominate so widely in so many fields?"

In what fields do they truly dominate? Are they the most common hunting rifle? Are they the most common self-defense tool? Isn't this a case of perception? It is clear you are a fan of AR's, and why not be? They can be great rifles if made by a good manufacturer (crap if made by folks like Hesse/Blackthorne). But are they the most common varmint rifle? Deer rifle?

I don't mean this as an attack towards AR kind of guys. The lever action rifle dominated the hunting scene for the first 50 years of the 20th century because it was the dominant rifle used - they were used more than any other type. After WWI, their dominance began to be chipped away by soldiers who used 1917's and 1903's during the war. Post 1950, dominance evolved to the bolt-action sporter. Today, while lever action rifles remain popular, bolt-action rifles dominate the hunting scene.

I have seen nothing that indicates an AR type has taken over any particular category beyond competition shooting, though significant inroads have been made in varmint-shooting. Police use is through the roof, so I'll agree it dominates there - displacing the riot gun.

Considering the cost of a Savage 110 with nice glass, the AR will remain more expensive for most hunting applications while not necessarily providing any better performance. High capacity magazines don't get to go to that party. Even so, an AR can't economically replace my squirrel gun, deer rifle, self-defense pistol/revolver, bird/rabbit guns. For my use, it could displace my Ruger Mini 14 GB for coyotes or rabid racoons but that is about it.

If they were so dominant, then Wal Mart would still sell them. They still sell shotguns and bolt action rifles. AR's don't move fast enough to justify keeping. Of course, that Wal Mart even began selling them is evidence of their popularity, but it was not sustainable else they'd still be on the shelves.

None of my posts are intended to disparage the AR. While it is true that, having owned a number of them in a number of configurations in the past, I have finally concluded the AR is not for me, others using them is just fine by me. I don't even have to begrudgingly give it credit - I know they can be superb rifles.

Louis Seacamp invented my personal favorite hunting rifle, the Mossberg 800, in addition to other things, but I know for a fact that his firearms contributions are steps below Browning. It's pretty easy to not own a Stoner design. Yet how many of us own and use something that comes from Browning's designs?
 
"If that's the case, then why do the ARs dominate so widely in so many fields?"

In what fields do they truly dominate? Are they the most common hunting rifle? Are they the most common self-defense tool? Isn't this a case of perception? It is clear you are a fan of AR's, and why not be? They can be great rifles if made by a good manufacturer (crap if made by folks like Hesse/Blackthorne). But are they the most common varmint rifle? Deer rifle?

I don't mean this as an attack towards AR kind of guys. The lever action rifle dominated the hunting scene for the first 50 years of the 20th century because it was the dominant rifle used - they were used more than any other type. After WWI, their dominance began to be chipped away by soldiers who used 1917's and 1903's during the war. Post 1950, dominance evolved to the bolt-action sporter. Today, while lever action rifles remain popular, bolt-action rifles dominate the hunting scene.

I have seen nothing that indicates an AR type has taken over any particular category beyond competition shooting, though significant inroads have been made in varmint-shooting. Police use is through the roof, so I'll agree it dominates there - displacing the riot gun.

Considering the cost of a Savage 110 with nice glass, the AR will remain more expensive for most hunting applications while not necessarily providing any better performance. High capacity magazines don't get to go to that party. Even so, an AR can't economically replace my squirrel gun, deer rifle, self-defense pistol/revolver, bird/rabbit guns. For my use, it could displace my Ruger Mini 14 GB for coyotes or rabid racoons but that is about it.

If they were so dominant, then Wal Mart would still sell them. They still sell shotguns and bolt action rifles. AR's don't move fast enough to justify keeping. Of course, that Wal Mart even began selling them is evidence of their popularity, but it was not sustainable else they'd still be on the shelves.

None of my posts are intended to disparage the AR. While it is true that, having owned a number of them in a number of configurations in the past, I have finally concluded the AR is not for me, others using them is just fine by me. I don't even have to begrudgingly give it credit - I know they can be superb rifles.

Louis Seacamp invented my personal favorite hunting rifle, the Mossberg 800, in addition to other things, but I know for a fact that his firearms contributions are steps below Browning. It's pretty easy to not own a Stoner design. Yet how many of us own and use something that comes from Browning's designs?
Well said well said. Thank you I learned a few things and I agree.

Now about Stoner Vs Browning.

From what I have read here so far it seems that Stoner worked with teams and had help in designing the AR-15 and probably other products. He does however seem to be the brainchild a did have about 100 patents for different products so I read. A coporate team player not really my cup of tea but there are advantages to having more brains than one, but not always (there have been stooge teams that are anything but teams.)

John Moses Browning unlike Stoner was a firearms designer from the start and independent. His ideas were unique enough that firearms manufacturers paid him for the patents. They made a fortune from them.

When Winchester refused to give him a fair cut for his auto 5 shotgun (you would think that they would be more greatful for the first platters of success he fed them) he was forced to go overseas and FN not only worked out an arrangement with him but also properly gave credit to him by naming the shotgun after him (The Browning Auto 5.)

Of course Winchester then tried to compete by making knockoffs with patent workarounds but I bet Browning had more talent than their whole design team combined.

I don't see Browning and Stoner as having very much in common. I would imagine if Browning had access to modern technology he would have solved a lot of problems that manufacturing limitations of his time period presented. I don't think I need a PHD to figure that out.
 
Last edited:
g8r,

Actually he asked for less up front than some of his other designs......but he also asked for a per gun made payment. See all his other deals were cash up front and a set number of finished products to sell in his shop. Winchester wanted it all for a single payment just as they had been doing.

I have often suspected that Browning started looking at money a lot harder after his argument with the church about tithing. Apparently he believed that if he paid a full tithe on his Winchester money then his employees had no ned to do so as the money was already tithed OR if he paid his workers (OK, Brothers and the Englishman) before tithing then he could subtract those wages paid from his "income" and pay lesser tithes himself. He argued that the church was sort of double dipping and the church argued that each must pay full tithe on whatever they get.

Browning apparently made the statement that his then few sales to Winchester had brought more money into Ogden than anything else.

I suspect his interest in finding answers about money lead him to study his situation with Winchester and ask t change their way of doing business. After Whinchester said no way not happening Browning went over to Remington where he literally waited in the presedents waiting room as the Remington President had a heart attack. Did not get to see Remington that day for some reason.

Winchester bought at the flat rate a number of his designs that never got developed just to prevent him from selling them elsewhere.

He met a "Belgie" in the hotel that evening and the rest as they say is history.

Most forget that he also designed sold and the government had made a 37mm cannon BTW. The Marlin machine gun of WWI was an 1895 Browning "Potato Digger" with an improved gas system and Browning did advisory work in their factory as well as over at Colts during WWI.

He actually did work at his Mother's kitchen table during meals and on more than one occasion requested materials and cutters to make mock ups of parts or templates that he watched inter act with one another. I would love to have a bit of table cloth or napkin from his Mother's table with his scribbles on it.

-kBob
 
John Moses Browning and Eugene Stoner were geniuses. And millions of active duty and veterans like me are glad they both were on our side! Even today you're well equipped with an AR-15 and 1911 or Hi Power, each designed over 50 years ago.

I don't know how to pit them against each other.
The current M15/AR15 versions are okay. But most of the improvements that took it from a sow's ear to a silk purse were not of Stoner's design.

In the same vein the 1911A1's improvements were not of JMB's design. However, the 1911 was a serviceable firearm from it adoption. The M16 was not.

Oh, and one of the reasons the M16 and it's offspring have been our service rifle/carbine for so long is the money that the services have invested in it. There are, have been and will be better options. But, no one wants to spend the money for them.
 
Cast my vote for J. Moses.
For whatever reason there are several aspects of the AR design I don't like (dinky T-handle, direct impingement, design-needs-an-extra-cartridge-seating-doowhacky). I've said many times I wish everything I owned ran as well as the one piece I have that says "Browning" on it.
 
Experience often dictates how one feels in these types of issues. I freely admit that my preference for JMB's work over Stoner's is completely driven by emotion.

I'm sure one could get right down to the engineering aspects to decide which one prefers. However, cold logical thought is somehow much less desirable than experience driven emotion. Besides, people are emotional beings, not robotic creations.
 
"I've said many times I wish everything I owned ran as well as the one piece I have that says "Browning" on it."
Is it an auto-loading rifle? :D Admittedly, my FNAR runs awesome, but it's progenitor BAR was designed by a different Browning (his nephew, I gather? :confused:)

TCB
 
The BAR was a WWI design. For that era, it was outstanding (compare it to the Lewis or Chauchat). For its day, it was the king. It was dated by WWII, but folks forget it was a design for WWI.
 
The BAR was a WWI design. For that era, it was outstanding (compare it to the Lewis or Chauchat). For its day, it was the king. It was dated by WWII, but folks forget it was a design for WWI.
The Barrows (Bonnie and Clyde) seemed to have managed to turn them into fearsome, formidable, portable, simi concealable barrier busting streetsweepers that were quite effective during gun battles against more lighter portable weapons but then again they also carried a few lighter portable weapons of their own in addition to their chopped down BARs.
 
I'm not putting the BAR down. The Brits and their BREN were hardly any better off. 20 round box magazines limited them both.
 
I'm not putting the BAR down. The Brits and their BREN were hardly any better off. 20 round box magazines limited them both.

O.K. then I will. In my opinion anyone with a BREN was much better off. The BREN is just as reliable as the BAR but has 50% more ammunition capacity (30rd Box Mag and 100rd Drum) and a removable barrel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top