Dude, that's like not funny.
Posted on 12/10/2018 5:50:31 AM PST by vannrox
This article consists of a video found HERE. It's actually a pretty good video.
Some comments...
Is the Stoner 63 really as good of a gun as everyone says? Today is my first opportunity to try one out on the range, and I’m going to look at it in three different configurations: the Mk23 SEAL light machine gun, the “Bren” style automatic rifle, and the carbine. Let’s see how it handles!
I owe a tremendous thanks to Movie Armaments Group in Toronto for the opportunity to take the Stoner kit out to the range! Check them out on Instagram to see many of the guns in their extensive collection: https://instagram.com/moviearmamentsgroup
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
PO Box 87647
Tucson, AZ 85754
Fantastic video, Ian. What were the problems with the Stoner System that caused the U.S. Military to not adopt at least the belt fed and magazine fed machine guns.
Parts breakage that got progressively worse after couple 1000s of rounds. Stoner 63 was tested in Yugoslavia in 1969. as an potential weapons for a paratroopers, but it turned out that after average 2500-3000 rounds through each weapon parts started breaking at unacceptable rate, which put an end to a tests.
The point is that the Stoner 63 system was good for specialists, but not good for ordinary grunts. This is probably the reason why the Nikonov can’t replace the AK rifles; too freakishly complicated for conscripted/emergency-drafted people. And let’s not even get into the issues of the SA-80. As Kalashnikov himself said, a standard infantry rifle must be an item that any random soldier can operate and maintain. “Evidently, British soldiers must all be geniuses.”
Dude, that's like not funny.
I own a Robinson Armaments M96 expeditionary rifle, which was in part designed as a clone of the Stoner 63. In terms of functionality, it’s one of the nicest semi-auto rifles I own, even though RobArms never came out with the Bren or the belt-fed modifications they promised. It really is a fantastic shooter.
No Photos ?!?
I’m Shocked.
Never a dull moment, eh?
No pictures of Ron Paul?
Hard to believe Ol’ Eugene designed a piston-drive machine (like an AK) and then went to the gas-impingement AR system.
Robinson Armaments made the M96 Expeditionary, based on the Stoner M63 rifle. Semi auto only, no Happy Switch... (sigh).... Not being produced, no parts, no service support either, unfortunately. But they’re out there if you got the $$$.
Last price I saw on a Stoner was a while back and was $180,000 for a 63A LMG version IIRC
bkmk
the other way round... the AR10, forerunner to the M16, was developed in the late 50's only to be scaled down and adopted as the M16 in 64 where the Stoner was designed in the early 60's the AR180 was also piston driven
RE M96:
Yeah, they’re out there, occasionally turning up at gun shows, but they go fast.
People like them.
I’d LOVE a Stoner M63, but the $$$$ isn’t in my wallet.. :^)
I remember AR180s. Saw a lot of them on the market for a while, then they just started staying in peoples’ collections.
Love the modern stuff, but I prefer wood and steel, as in Garands, M14s, Enfields, etc.
Just something about those that makes me go “Hmmmm...” :^)
Could be because the FIRST rifle I ever fired was my uncle’s M1 Garand... Dunno....
there’s no mistaking quality
i’d LOVE to see that idiot pull the trigger...
Worth the Wait!
Thanks,
Santa says Yes!
A beauty...
I like the Rifle/Carbine configuration best.
True that, brother...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.