What Would Stoner Do?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by JCooperfan1911, Jun 16, 2022.

  1. JCooperfan1911

    JCooperfan1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2020
    Messages:
    2,252
    Hello. I am not normally an AR-15 fan, and in fact, have never owned one in my life. They just seemed so generic and boring to me.

    But, a recent project from Ian McCollum and Karl Kasarda have yielded a very neat gun called the What Would Stoner Do. They have an entire series about it on YouTube. Basically, it is a civilian-oriented featherweight AR designed to not sacrifice strength, durability, or reliability in achieving its goals.

    These design philosophies mirror Gene Stoner’s initial developments ideas and implementations for his rifles before government insistence made them bulkier and heavier than need be etc.

    The naked rifle weighs 4 lbs 15 oz and is extremely neat. The design choices were made not for military fighting WW3, but civilians which I think is fundamentally cool.

    I ordered a complete upper and lower for the gun as well as some goodies to go one if, but not many. All up the rifle should weigh approx. 5 lbs 10 oz with red dot, sling, and flashlight. Seems awfully light doesn’t it? Stay tuned. I did a ton of research.

    What are your thoughts on the WWSD?
     
  2. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    9,709
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    You have broken the seal......:D
     
  3. Jonny2guns

    Jonny2guns Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2020
    Messages:
    398
    Interested, very interested
     
  4. trackskippy

    trackskippy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,525
    Meh. Personally, if I was spending that kind of money, I would have put it towards something of known quality and with a proven rep, for a decent benchmark gun, especially for a first gun.

    Past personal experience has been, the gimmicky stuff has almost always been a disappointment. But, you never know. Load up on ammo and shoot the snot out of it and let us know. Thats really the only way to know with anything.

    If it happens to turn out trouble though, just dont think all AR's are like that. ;)
     
    Demi-human likes this.
  5. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,167
    Location:
    Alabama
    It was the Infantry school who wanted a 30-06 equivalent in a M1 carbine weight package, and controllable in full auto!

    And, the infantry school did not like magazines. Said they were too expensive, too heavy, they wanted ammunition on clips!

    One reason Stoner made cheap "disposable" magazines that have been the bane of the M16 platform till material technology made durable, lightweight, magazines.
     
  6. Demi-human
    • Contributing Member

    Demi-human maybe likes firearms a little bit…

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,525
    Location:
    The Haymarsh, MI (Aka, Paradise.)
    I am not super interested in the WWSD.
    I’m just not into the poly. If it should be poly, it should look different than an AR.
    And I have gotten over the piston thing. Is this one a piston? I’ll have to recheck out Brownells.

    However, I am very interested in what you think of it, @JCooperfan1911.
    You say you’ve never been a fan, and yet here you are trying something new!

    Well done, sir. I wish others can share your open mindedness.:thumbup:
     
  7. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,147
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    The feature set appeals strongly. Was a bummer when production crawled to a halt due to supplier issues.
    It's a pretty penny in any of the configurations, which does give pause.

    But, that lightweight feel in the hand is very much like how an M-1 Carbine feels, too. Balance point is very much the same, too.
     
  8. someguy2800

    someguy2800 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    7,008
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I have been meaning to pick up one of the monolythic polymer lowers for a while but havn't gotten around to it. I stocked up on lowers during the time that they were unavailable, otherwise I probably would have a bunch of them. I prefer fixed stocks and there is absolutely no reason that the lower on an AR needs to be aluminum given the materials that we have today to injection mold. I have a similar carbon fiber m-lok handguard on one of my uppers and it feels fragile to me, but I guess time will tell on that. I've never handled their handguard though and havn't really put mine through any serious use.
     
    JCooperfan1911 likes this.
  9. Varminterror

    Varminterror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    11,630
    It’s another gimmicky “fighting rifle” being sold to civilians which never actually have any qualification for what “fighting” in the civilian environment really would be. Fundamentally, I also believe the concession they made to enable their choice of polymer lower to function - forcing a fixed A2-ish stock - is contraindicated to their gimmick. It’s 2020, adjustable stock. Nothing else about the rifle is really novel - just another free-floating carbine - so the polymer lower is really the driving design parameter for the gimmick.

    I’m a HUGE AR fan and fanatical AR builder, but this thing isn’t what it claims to be.
     
    gotboostvr likes this.
  10. gotboostvr

    gotboostvr Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,776
    It's a pencil barrel on a CavArms lower essentially. Neat idea. Liked it over a decade ago when my buddy built one for half as much as these go for.

    It's a nice idea, but I don't get the big explosion of hype around them recently.
     
  11. Mk-211

    Mk-211 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2019
    Messages:
    1,221
    Wish I could have this Stoner :cool:

    Stoner63lmg-2.jpg
     
  12. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,499
    Location:
    North Carolina
    It was not government insistence that made the AR-10 bulkier and heavier . . .

    It was physics and material science.

    The AR-10 grew in weight so that it could survive a 6,000 round endurance test without excessive parts breakage and high reliability. The AR-10 tested in 1960 by Aberdeen Proving grounds weighed 10.11 pounds fully loaded with a 20 round magazine. This was the design that managed to pass the endurance test without multiple parts breakage.

    The M16 and M16A1 did gain weight in the mid-1980s with the A2, but like the M4A1, most of the extra weight is in the barrel. Change the heavy barrel for one that is similar in profile to the M16A1 (0.70 in dia under the hand guards and 0.57 in dia in front) you probably have the lightest rifle that would still pass a 6,000 round endurance test.
     
    Gordon likes this.
  13. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,499
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The USMC came real close to adopting it.

    29remj7axhf51.jpg
     
  14. someguy2800

    someguy2800 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    7,008
    Location:
    Minnesota
    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.

    Its a very interesting video. One of the more interesting details is him giving his take on how the 223 cartridge came to be. In his words the only requirements that we has given for a cartridge was that they wanted a 22 caliber bullet that could penetrate a 10 gauge steel helmet at 500 yards. Stoner himself basically picked 222 rem out of the catalog of available commercial cartridges as the lightest weight ammo that could meet the penetration requirements. Even the bullet weight of 55 grains was just chosen to meet weight goals. Sometime later when it came to manufacture ammunition it was recommended by the cartridge manufacturer to lengthen it into what became the 223.

     
    JCooperfan1911 likes this.
  15. JCooperfan1911

    JCooperfan1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2020
    Messages:
    2,252
    I wasn’t talking about the AR10.
     
  16. Mosin Bubba

    Mosin Bubba Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,831
    I'm a pencil barrel AR fan, so sign me up.

    As far as being "what Stoner would do", I think they're on the right track. The original ARs prioritized light weight and used the latest in 1960s materials tech to get there. The plastics of Stoner's day were primitive... IIRC the furniture on the A1 was fiberglass, and the Army didn't switch to plastic furniture until the 80s. If Stoner had the means to manufacture an entire lower out of plastic, I imagine he would have.
     
    Golfanaticshooter likes this.
  17. JeeperCreeper

    JeeperCreeper Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,885
    Location:
    Under A Rock
    I liked the concept of the WWSD rifle, and understand their rationale. But it wasn't fully my preference.

    But I liked the idea of a lightweight utility right that was still mostly "milspec" and modular.

    So I made my own version. Used a Faxon Gunner barrel, Midwest lightweight rail, Leupold lightweight scope, etc.

    Half the price and like only 4oz heavier

    IMG_20220227_193359926~3.jpg
     
  18. Idahou

    Idahou Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2020
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    WWSD is probably only one AR-15 which have my reall interest (i could go for some other AR15 bu mostly because market dictate it...)
    While it doenst provide something exactly new, it really high up AR-15 adventages in way it makes intereting option even for non-AR fan

    Ian and Karl made their names with theirs channells so even if its not prevent QC or other build issues, it certainly build assumption of decent and better quality, at least in my eyes
     
  19. 12Bravo20

    12Bravo20 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,170
    Location:
    Missouri
    The Cav Arms one piece lower has been around for quite some time in one fashion or another. And that is the only way I would ever use a polymer lower for anything other than a 22lr build. And I would definitely still use an aluminum upper receiver for the build.

    I say that with some experience to back it up. I have 1 New Frontier polymer lower and bought the Chiappa 22lr upper to put on it. While it is a very light build, the polymer upper flexed way too much to get any kind of repeatable accuracy out of the rifle. And the NFA polymer lower is too flimsy for anything other than bench/casual shooting. It won't hold up to getting tossed around for very long before it breaks a the buffer tube. The Cav Arms lower fixes the breakage issue with their one one piece design.

    I am still using the NFA lower but have since swapped the Chiappa bolt and barrel into an aluminum upper with a free float handguard. The thing is surprisingly accurate set up this way.
     
  20. Archie

    Archie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,908
    Location:
    Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
    Gene Stoner was a visionary. He took the demands of others and figured out how to make those demands in a real, three dimensional artifact. He thought on his own and worked on 'what if...'
    This also applies to Eli Whitney, John Browning, Paul Mauser, and others.
    Think on one's own. Let invention - the process - run wild.

    That's what Gene Stoner did and would do still if...
     
  21. chicharrones

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,412
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    I like the concept of the WWSD rifle just like I did the less expensive Cav Arms version. Easy for me to do as I'm not really an AR fan, even though I fully appreciate what the AR has become.
     
  22. tark

    tark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,368
    Location:
    atkinson, ill
    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.
     
    d2wing likes this.
  23. chicharrones

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,412
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    Trying to guess what a dead person would do certainly isn't going to be very accurate. But, a WWSD rifle sure is drawing more interest than the old Cav Arms gun.

    Welcome to the modern world of Utube influencers and the careers that have spawned out of that.
     
    d2wing likes this.
  24. tark

    tark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,368
    Location:
    atkinson, ill
    Wish I had this one.
     

    Attached Files:

    Rshooter and Demi-human like this.
  25. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,147
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    The CAV Arms story winds up dove-tailing into this one.

    One of the reasons the CAV Arms lower was less expensive was that 1, it was made near twenty years ago (in a very short run, too), and 2, without a lot of design engineering. Those original CAV aArms stocks had fit and finish that was not quite up to Tapco standards.

    The CAV Arms moulds (and some of their finished stock) went to GWT after CA with Tango Uniform. GWT couldn't get anyone to make any more product with the worn-out moulds (polymer moulding is a world unto itself, you spend $50K or $100K on steel moulds, and you only get a few thousand "clean" castings out before tyou are spending more on cleanup labor than on making the raw material.

    KE Arms wound up buying the IP off GWT, and having to reverse engineer all of it. Like every other engineering exercise, it's filled with inflexible compromises.

    Such is life.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice