Military Review

Stoner 63: Eugene Stoner's modular weapon system

74

Armored personnel carrier V100 Commando from Cadillac Gage. Photo: Car From UK


After ArmaLite sold Colt's AR-15 manufacturing rights, Eugene Stoner began work on another armory a system that would not infringe on patents obtained for the AR-10 and AR-15 rifles. The result was an automatic rifle AR-16 chambered for 7.62x51 mm, but it did not go into the series. The reason was the growing interest in the low-pulse cartridge 5.56 × 45. ArmaLite decided to redesign the AR-16 for a promising low-pulse munition. The task was received by Arthur Miller (Arthur Miller), who in the period 1963-1965. developed a version of the Stoner rifle under 5,56 × 45 rounds. A number of improvements were made to the design, and the rifle received the designation AR-18. Thanks to working with weapons systems under the 5.56 × 45 cartridge, Arthur Miller received the position of chief engineer of ArmaLite, which remained vacant after the departure of Eugene Stoner.

The AR-18 rifle was produced at different times in Japan and the UK, both for the armed forces and for the civilian market. A certain number of rifles fell into the hands of terrorists. So, AR-18 was often used by IRA militants, so this rifle is better known under the nickname "Widowmaker" ("Widowmaker").

Not all readers know that when registering ArmAlite (01.10.1954), the full name of the company was: “ArmaLite Division of Fairchild.” That is, at first ArmaLite was a division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation. The same Fairchild Corporation, which later developed and manufactured the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, armed with a 7-barrel gun.

In 2010, Fairchild was acquired by the US division of Elbit Systems. But this is already in the 21st century. And in the 50s of the last century, the corporation expanded, its leaders decided to occupy a niche in the small arms market, so they invested in the creation of a new company called ArmaLight.

After leaving ArmaLite, Eugene Stoner joined the parent company Fairchild, but did not work there for long. Perhaps they did not agree or did not allow to realize their own achievements. Therefore, Eugene Stoner began to look for a manufacturer for whom he could develop a new rifle, the concept of which he had long pondered. Paul Van Hee, Cadillac Gage's Sales Director, arranged for Stoner to meet with a vice president named Howard Carson.
It is noteworthy that both ArmaLite and the Cadillac Gage branch were located next door in the city of Costa Mesa (USA, California).

At the meeting, the designer offers the concept of his new weapons complex. Mr. Carson became interested in the concept of Stoner, and invited him to discuss his project with Mr. Russell Bauer, president of the parent plant of Cadillac Gage (Warren, USA, Michigan).

The concept of the Stoner weapons complex was to develop interchangeable modules and a series of interchangeable barrels. According to the designer’s idea, thanks to a single base (bolt box) and interchangeable kits, fighters will be able to quickly assemble, even in the field, several types of small arms: a carbine, an assault rifle or a machine gun.

Looking ahead, I inform you that the first test batch of experimental weapons for the US Department of Defense was made in 1963, so this system was designated the Stoner 63. By the way, in the mid-70s, the Steyr AUG weapon system was developed in Austria. It was also built on a modular scheme, but received much greater fame and distribution.

As a result of a series of meetings and negotiations with top managers of the Cadillac Gage, Eugene Stoner moves to work in this company. The most famous development of Cadillac Gage Corporation, is a wheeled armored personnel carrier "Commando" (M706). By the way, the Cadillac Gage in 1986 was acquired by Textron Corporation. Currently, the Textron conglomerate includes companies such as Bell Helicopter, Cessna, Lycoming and others. And yes, the Cadillac Gage has nothing to do with luxury cars or General Motors.

In the Cadillac Gage, Eugene Stoner does not begin work on yet another assault rifle, but on a whole range of small arms. After all, the designer already in the process of developing weapons of the AR-10/15 family already had new ideas and developments for the future.

Take at least two experimental light machine guns created on the basis of the AR-10 rifle: with the store-fed AR-10 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), and with the tape AR-10 belt-fed Light Machine Gun (LMG). By the way, the AR-10 LMG version was developed in the Netherlands, at the company Artillerie Inrichtingen (AI). The fact is that in 1956 the Netherlands decided to establish a licensed production of AR-10 on its territory and rearm its armed forces with a Stoner rifle. Eugene Stoner traveled to the Netherlands to assist in the translation of documentation to the metric system, to make design changes according to customer requirements and to start production. As a result, some components and mechanisms of the AR-10 were redesigned, a number of prototypes and prototypes were manufactured. The early version of AR-10 was significantly improved in the Netherlands, and many solutions took root on later versions. One of the modifications of the AR-10, redesigned at Artillerie Inrichtingen (AI), was purchased by Cuba and Sudan. Therefore, this modification is often called “Cuban” (Cuban) or “Sudan” (Sudanese).


Experimental light machine gun AR-10 SAW chambered for 7.62x51 mm. The barrel is quick-detachable. The handle above the barrel serves both for carrying and for changing the barrel


Experimental light machine gun AR-10 LMG chambered for 7.62x51 mm with tape power

Stoner m69w


Several years have passed since the development of the .223 Remington cartridge (5.56 × 45), but at that time it was not yet considered a military munition. It is said above that up to this point, Eugene Stoner had never worked with this cartridge. Therefore, as in the case of the AR-10, he designed his new prototype under the good old cartridge 7.62x51 (.308 Winchester).

To work on a new project, Eugene Stoner lured two of his most talented assistants out of ArmaLite. These are Robert Fremont and James L. Sullivan. Both of them proved themselves during the design of rifles from AR-1 to AR-15. Frankly, gentlemen Fremont and Sullivan, like Eugene Stoner, are the equivalent creators of the AR-15 rifle: from the first prototype with the designation X AR 1501 to the start of mass production of the finished model.

Their names are mentioned much less frequently in connection with Stoner's developments, although their role can hardly be overestimated. In order not to belittle anyone’s merit, I will describe the tasks that the main team members performed.

Eugene Stoner generated concepts. James Sullivan designed designs (drawings) for Stoner's concepts. Robert Fremont supervised the production of prototypes and the organization of production processes. That is, he was a technologist.

Also, gentlemen Fremont and Sullivan took part in finalizing the new .223 Remington cartridge, which will later become known to 5,56 × 45 mm NATO.

There are two opinions.

1. Eugene Stoner came to the Cadillac Gage with the goal of developing a machine gun for the US Army (hence the 7.62 caliber). However, in the process, the designer proposed a whole family, built according to a modular scheme.

2. The idea of ​​a modular complex came to Eugene Stoner during his work on the AR-10 and AR-15. Since ArmaLite began to have financial problems, and there was no time for new projects, the designer found another weapons company that agreed to provide him with everything necessary.

The author of the article considers version 2 correct.

Yes, in 1959 ArmaLite sold its rights to Colt's AR-15 due to a bunch of difficulties. But I propose to study the photo of the first prototype (M69W), which was already made in the Cadillac Gage, after Stoner's departure from ArmaLite.

Stoner 63: Eugene Stoner's modular weapon system

The first prototype of the new Eugene Stoner M69W system. Pay attention to the receiver and wood fittings. Photo: Small Arms Review 1998

The photo above shows an enlarged marking from the receiver, with serial number 00001. The abbreviation CGC means the name of the manufacturer (Cadillac Gage Corporation). Marking M69W does not mean a year of adoption. This is an ambigram. That is, an inscription that can be read upside down. According to the idea of ​​the designer, the ambigram symbolizes the ability of the bolt box to work upside down (read more about this below). The first working prototype of the future Stoner 63 complex was developed under the 7.62 × 51mm NATO cartridges (as well as the AR-10).

Apparently, the receiver is made on a milling machine. On the side we see the receiver window for tape power. That is, in front of us is clearly a machine gun under intermediate cartridges. One gets the impression that the barrel of the machine gun is fixed: no visible mounts, no handles for quick replacement. That is, at the prototype stage, there was no talk of any modularity. However, in the ambigram (M69W), the designer as if hints at an unusual design. Most likely, the implementation of modularity was planned in subsequent stages. That is, already in the process of transition from a prototype to a more technologically advanced product suitable for mass production.

You must admit that a milled receiver is a heavy and expensive part. In addition, its production requires a lot of time and skilled machine workers. Most likely, in order to simplify and reduce the cost of the production process, as well as reduce the weight of the product structure, a perforated metal shutter box was developed for the next prototype. Indeed, in the production of AR 15 of the same Eugene Stoner, stamping was already widely used. The same opinion is shared by the authors of the book "Assault Rifles of the World" Harry Paul Johnson and Thomas W. Nelson. The following is a translation from English excerpts from the specified book.

Initially, on the basis of the M69W system, a modification of the machine gun with tape power (LMG) was developed. But soon 2 products were also manufactured in the configuration of a light machine gun / assault rifle. That is, these prototypes of the M69W system had a combined type of ammunition, which was carried out either by tape or by stores. Changing the configuration and type of ammunition was achieved by replacing several components and assemblies.

It was supposed to produce pre-production products from stamped sheet metal, but the first prototypes of the M69W were made on machined aircraft alloy machines. There is evidence that at first the 7075 / T6 alloy was used, but over time, James Sullivan developed and patented the Sulliloy (Sullivan Alloy) alloy on its basis.


Prototype M69W in LMG configuration, view from both sides. In the second photo, the receiver cover is open. Photo (this and beyond): The World's Assault Rifles

The gentlemen of the Cadillac Gage were impressed by the prototypes, and on November 6, 1961, the company signed a license agreement with Eugene Stoner. Already in December, next to the main plant in the city of Costa Mesa, a small factory (workshop) was opened specifically for the implementation of the Stoner project. By that time, a modified version of the M69W product was already ready.

Stoner 62


Like the M69W, in Stoner 62 the operation of automation is also based on the removal of powder gases from the bore to the gas chamber, in which they act on the piston, which drives the shutter frame. Locking occurs by turning the shutter, 7 fighting stops. The gas vent mechanism is characterized by a long stroke of the gas piston.

Stoner 62 was made of stamped sheet metal. In his development, Stoner was helped by James Sullivan and Robert Fremont. Like the M69W, the Stoner 62 was a rifle that could be converted into a tape machine gun.

The Stoner 62 was produced in a single set (1 receiver), several barrels, and interchangeable modules in order to configure an assault rifle, a tape machine gun, and an easel machine gun. The photo below shows the various configurations.


Stoner 62 prototype chambered for 7.62x51 mm with a magazine for 20 rounds


Stoner 62 prototype, left view


Stoner 62 prototype with bipod. In future versions of the bipod will be a different design


The prototype Stoner 62 in the modification "Machine gun with tape power." Wooden forend is missing for better ventilation of the barrel


Prototype Stoner 62 in the modification "easel machine gun"

On the M69W and Stoner 62 systems, in the “belt powered machine gun” configurations, the same M13 cartridge belt was used as in the single M60 machine gun.

Stoner 63


Due to the continuously growing worldwide interest in the .223 Remington cartridge (5,56x45 mm), the Stoner 62 was an intermediate product. Therefore, the Cadillac Gage decided to adapt the weapon to a new cartridge. Eugene Stoner (as in the case of AR-15) again entrusted this work to L. James Sullivan and Robert Fremont. The result was the Stoner 63. This product is very similar to the Stoner 62, except for its dimensions and the ammunition used.


Stoner 63 in the "carbine" configuration. Serial model of the Vietnam War

The first Stoner 63 prototype in the “rifle” configuration was ready in February 1963. Stoner 63 also made extensive use of sheet metal and stamping technology.


The prototype of the Stoner 63 rifle chambered for 5,56x45 mm with serial number 0001


Prototype Stoner 63 (rifle), already with sights. Please note: the store is already 30 rounds


The proton Stoner 63 in the "carbine" configuration. Pay attention to wood fittings


Prototype Stoner 63 (carbine). Pay attention to the folding butt


The proton Stoner 63 in the configuration "machine gun with magazine-fed"


Stoner 63 prototype in a “belt powered machine gun” configuration

While working on Stoner 63, the tasks of Eugene Stoner's colleagues became different. So, Robert Fremont was appointed responsible for the development of modules for the configuration of "machine gun with tape power." That is, he became the head of the subproject. And James Sullivan led the team, which developed the nodes for the configuration of the "machine gun with store-fed."

Upon completion of the work, the metal on all samples was coated with a certain synthetic material (finished in a black synthetic) called Endurion, which gave the metal a black color. Perhaps an analogue of burnishing. Whereas in the early Stoner 63, butts and other fittings were made of walnut, in later specimens they were black in color, made of fiberglass reinforced polymer.

A month later, on March 4, 1963, Cadillac Gage received an order from the US Department of Defense for a batch of 25 Stoner 63 units in various configurations for testing. The order amount was $ 174,750. Already in April, at the base of the Marine Corps of El Toro, demonstration firing of the Stoner 63 was organized in the configuration of a "machine gun with tape power". The results of the firing were closely watched by General Lew Walt.

His full name is Lewis William Walt. At that time, Lew Walt rose to the rank of 4-star general, which corresponds to the rank of admiral. He was a combat officer, took part in the 2nd World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. He was repeatedly awarded medals, and twice for outstanding heroism he was awarded the US Naval Cross (the highest award of the Navy). The future general Walt received one of the Navy crosses for leading the attack on the Aogiri Range, at the Battle of Cape Gloucester (New Britain, in the Pacific Ocean). The purpose of the operation was the capture and subsequent operation of two Japanese military airfields. After a successful operation, the captured Aogiri Range was renamed Walt's Ridge (Walt Range). That is, he began to bear the name of the future general. This was General Lew Walt, who was present at the demonstration fire of the Stoner 63 machine gun.

From August to September 1963, Stoner 63 products in all configurations were tested at the Marine Corps Research Center (Quantico, Virginia, USA). The new weapon of the Stoner system made a positive impression with its light weight and ammunition efficiency. Most of all, the Marines liked the “rifle” and “belt powered machine gun” configurations.

However, the Stoner 63 system has not been tested. Representatives of the Marine Corps, the Army and the US Air Force have proposed a number of improvements. The modernization process dragged on and took more than 3 years. In order to comply with the chronology, other developments based on the Stoner 63 system will be described below. A description of the upgraded products that have received the Stoner 63A designation will follow.

Stoner 63 LMG Pod


In 1963, a young apprentice of Eugene Stoner left ArmaLite and followed his mentor at the Cadillac Gage. His name was Robert Gaddis. A little earlier, the Combat Dragon program launched to create a lightweight two-seat attack aircraft. It arose because of the war in Vietnam. In the conflict zone, a counter-guerrilla aircraft was required, which should have been equipped with small arms as well. They planned to arm the new model of the armored aircraft Cessna A-37 Dragonfly with hanging machine-gun containers. In the documents of those years it was designated AT-37. Perhaps because it was developed on the basis of the training Cessna T-37 Tweet. Thus, adding the designations A-37 and T-37, received the AT-37.

Already on October 9, 1963, Cadillac Gage received an order from the US Air Force for the manufacture of 2 experimental machine-gun installations in suspended containers. In each container, it was required to install 3 machine guns.

The basis was proposed to use the Stoner 63 with tape power. The new team member, Robert Gaddis, was appointed responsible for the project. The US Air Force order was completed. A young student of Eugene Stoner was able to quickly develop and construct everything necessary, according to specifications. In foreign literature, these products are called "experimental Stoner 63 Machineguns." It was planned to hang them in pairs, to the pylons under the wings of aircraft.


Hanging container (LMG Pod) for 3 Stoner 63 machine guns with tape power. Pay attention to their location in the container.

As you can see, each machine gun is located a little behind the next one after it. Thus, the designer provided the container with compactness, as well as easy access to cartridge boxes with ribbons. Each tape contained 100 rounds. That is, the ammunition was 600 rounds of ammunition for 6 barrels. The machine gun rate was about 750 rds / min. If we assume that all the machine guns worked simultaneously, as on Alexander Pokryshkin’s Aero Cobra, it would be quite an impressive second volley and firepower.

But it was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines. Rather, about thickets in ravines. Now every gun lover knows that the 5.56 NATO bullets are good, provided that there are no obstacles in their path. And if the bullet passes through the vegetation, it changes the trajectory, it can lose both speed and lethal force. Do not forget that at that time 5.56 mm cartridges were completely new. About this "side effect" was not yet known, since the weapons for this munition did not really participate in real hostilities. The attack aircraft were to wage a counter-guerrilla war mainly over the jungle. Therefore, it would hardly always be realistic to hit targets through dense thickets. Unless lead a harassing fire.

The machine gun tests of the Stoner 63 LMG Pod were carried out on the basis of the Eglin Air Force (California, USA). They were installed not only on the jet A-37 Dragonfly, but also on the piston North American T-28 Trojan. The installation of the Stoner system did not suit the customer. But not because of low-pulse cartridges, but because of permanent defects in the cartridge strip. In the original source indicate the break of the tape (belt separation). As a result, the Air Force command abandoned these installations, and the Stoner 63 LMG Pod project was closed. And instead of the 5,56-mm Stoner machine guns, the A-37 Dragonfly attack aircraft armed with multi-barrel M134 Minigun 7,62 mm caliber. In the countries of Latin America, a certain amount of Cessna Dragonfly is still in service.

The author turned to Bongo (Sergey Linnik) for comment regarding defects in cartridge strip on the Stoner 63 LMG Pod. Sergei modestly admitted that he is not an expert on this topic. He only suggested that the cause of tape breaks could be the vibration that occurred during firing. In the machine gun installation there were 3 machine guns. And each of them when shooting created oscillations that overlapped each other. There was a resonance, as a result of which the cartridge strip could not withstand the loads, and it collapsed.

The author agrees with Sergey and believes that the cartridge strips could be destroyed due to their imperfection. They were just raw at that time. The fact is that the 5,56 × 45 mm cartridge belt for ammunition was developed specifically for the Stoner machine guns with tape power. In the American nomenclature, this tape was designated M27. It is a practically reduced copy of the tape M13 for cartridges 7,62 × 51 mm to a single machine gun M60. Over time, due to the widespread distribution of 5,56 × 45 ammunition, the M27 cartridge belt was used in the FN Minimi and M249 SAW light machine guns. The M27 tape became widespread in the 1980s as a result of the adoption of 5,56 × 45 ammunition by NATO countries.

The author thanks Bongo (Sergey Linnik) for the consultation.

To be continued ...
A brief overview of the Stoner M63A modular system. Weaponology Transfer, Russian Translation


Author:
Photos used:
en.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org, patents.justia.com, trademarkia.com, patents.google.com, www.icollector.com, morphyauctions.com, rockislandauction.com, gunbroker.com, armslist.com, ipfs.io, joyreactor.cc coronadotimes.com, northwestfirearms.com, weaponland.ru gunsinternational.com, smallarmsreview.com, defensereview.com, coronadotimes.com, The World's Assault Rifles (Gary Paul Johnston, Thomas B. Nelson)
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 3danimal
    3danimal 19 March 2020 18: 15
    +5
    On the Kalashnikov YouTube channel, the legend about the impact of small obstacles on a 5,45mm bullet and the bullet insensitivity to them is 7,62 (7,62x39).
    1. Foul skeptic
      Foul skeptic 19 March 2020 18: 32
      +9
      On the Kalashnikov channel, they cheated a chuuyutochka)))
      when the target behind the branches at a distance of ten centimeters - it’s natural that the bullet will still hit the target, it will not turn 90 degrees))) And then in the video, if it does not change the memory, it was clear that a number of holes were already from bullets that entered sideways. A sniper is shot at a target behind the glass in a pair to first break the glass first, because the bullet is deformed on the glass and has an unpredictable trajectory.
      Watch from 15.14 how a 155 mm artillery shell ricochets from a watermelon
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 19 March 2020 19: 11
        0
        Not the first time. Honestly, the videos from Kalashnikov terribly disappoint. It’s about like medicine from Malakhova. Something true comes across, but otherwise - such noodles No.
        1. Mister X
          19 March 2020 19: 48
          +5
          Quote: Cowbra
          videos from Kalashnikov terribly disappoint. It's about like medicine from Malakhova

          hi Said it suddenly and bluntly!
          But I like the way you think)
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 20 March 2020 02: 07
        +2
        The branches had (albeit a smaller) effect on a 7,62mm (cartridge 7,62x39) bullet.
        With 5,45mm you can hit more often and easier to learn how to shoot. It was more important.
        1. Mister X
          20 March 2020 11: 23
          +2
          Quote: 3danimal
          Th. It was more important.

          There was another argument in favor of 5,56 × 45 / 5,45 × 39 ammunition:
          their weight.
          With the same weight with cartridges of 7,62 mm - it was possible to carry a larger number of 5 mm ammunition.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 20 March 2020 18: 46
            0
            I agree - this is also a plus.
      3. Shuttle
        Shuttle 20 March 2020 03: 45
        0
        You do not confuse in fact a hit, albeit a shell, but about a half dozen water tanks watermelons with branches.
        Yes, they cheated on Kalashnikov-channel. But your analogy of watermelon / shell does not quite match foliage / bullet.
        1. Foul skeptic
          Foul skeptic 20 March 2020 08: 49
          +2
          To be honest, I do not see the essence of the difference in these cases.
          What is there, what is the interaction of two moving objects with the same list of factors affecting movement (nutation, precession, gyroscopic effect, derivation, etc.) and behavior in a collision with an object whose density and hardness parameters are significantly inferior to those of a moving body provided that the dimensions of the collision objects are not exceeded and the bullet / projectile has sections in the collision where its surface interacts simultaneously with materials of different densities.
          And the movement of the shell was changed by not one and a half dozen watermelons, the video shows that on 3-4 watermelons the shell continues its path, turning to the direction of the original movement.
          Therefore, as an example of the fact that since a watermelon changes the movement of an artillery shell (under a number of conditions), then I think that a branch should not change the movement of a bullet (under a number of conditions), it is quite applicable.
          1. Shuttle
            Shuttle 20 March 2020 11: 47
            +2
            The movement of the body (whether it is a projectile, a bullet) changes both a watermelon and a branch, and, oh horror (!), Even air!
            The question is exactly how. In the myth of 5,45 / 5,56, impenetrable for bullets, it is argued that there would be no point in shooting through branches.
            But he is.
            1. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic 20 March 2020 12: 05
              0
              and, horror (!), even the air!

              do not distort. The speech in the message above was not about this, but about the fact that the physical systems "bullet-branch" and "shell-watermelon" do not have significant differences. The physical system "bullet-air" will have such differences from the above systems.
              Therefore, as an example of the fact that since a watermelon changes the artillery shell’s movement (under a number of conditions), then why the branch should not change the bullet’s movement (under a number of conditions), I think it is quite applicable.

              In the myth of 5,45 / 5,56, impenetrable for bullets, it is argued that there would be no point in shooting through branches.

              Is there a canonical definition of this myth? Simply in the interpretation of "does not break through" I have never come across.
              But he is.

              Is always?
              1. Shuttle
                Shuttle 20 March 2020 12: 19
                +1
                Quote: A vile skeptic
                and, horror (!), even the air!

                do not distort. Speech in the message above was not about that, but about ....

                About it.
                I do not distort, but clarify my thesis. And here you are just trying to impose on me what I was not thinking of leading. So who here is distorting another question.
                I expressed and clarified my thesis. You refute not my thesis. I do not mind yours.
                I propose to stop wasting resources.
                drinks
                1. Foul skeptic
                  Foul skeptic 20 March 2020 12: 27
                  +1
                  And here you are just trying to impose on me what I was not thinking of leading.

                  Of course, I was interested in this accusation, but I readily accept your proposal to end the conversation))
  2. Operator
    Operator 19 March 2020 18: 31
    +1
    The main thing in the weapon is not the appearance, but the internal content.

    The AR-15 was a revolutionary weapon (a direct gas drive of the shutter frame, the barrel located on the same line, a gas chamber and a return spring, a molded receiver), and the Stoner 63 was an epigone (side gas engine with a rod, a return spring above / below the barrel, stamped receiver, unification of parts of parts of a light machine gun and automatic rifle).

    In any case, the author of the two designs is certainly Eugene Stoner, and not his assistants, who performed purely layout and technological work.
    1. Mister X
      19 March 2020 19: 47
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      Stoner 63 - Epigone

      hi Did I understand correctly: Stoner 63 was not an original idea, and the designer repeated the idea of ​​others?
      1. Operator
        Operator 19 March 2020 20: 37
        -2
        Similarly, the Stoner 63 system repeats the AK / RPK and Vz.52.
        1. Mister X
          19 March 2020 21: 04
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          Stoner 63 repeats AK / RPK and Vz.52.

          You are about the automation scheme and layout. There are not so many of them in the world, as well as trunk locking schemes.
          The Stoner 63 focuses on modularity, which makes the weapon a multitasking complex.
          Like Steyr AUG or OTs-14 Thunderstorm.
          Agree that there are much less modular complexes.
          Right?
          1. Operator
            Operator 19 March 2020 22: 22
            -1
            On the issue of modularity (as opposed to the AR-15 design), Stoner was not the first. Before him, the "trophy" German gunsmiths in Izhevsk were engaged in modularity, on the instructions of the GRAU MVS USSR, they created layouts and technological documentation for organizing the production of a unified line of automatic machine - self-loading rifle - single / double feed light machine gun (the developments were used in the production of AKM, RPK and PM).

            However, it can be stated that the modularity of no one has soared (with the exception of machine guns / self-loading rifles with interchangeable barrels). The reason is elementary - for assault rifles you need a smaller caliber, for self-loading rifles and light machine guns a larger caliber, while for the second, store-based food is required, and for the third, tape.

            In the NGSW program, participants presented unified store-fed machine guns and self-loading rifles - modularity seems to be achieved, but by abandoning the machine guns.
            1. Mister X
              19 March 2020 23: 04
              +4
              Quote: Operator
              modularity never took off

              SA80 (assault rifle and light machine gun)
              Steyr aug (submachine gun, carbine, assault rifle, sniper rifle and light machine gun).
              Are these modular systems?
              They also did not take off?
              1. Operator
                Operator 19 March 2020 23: 46
                -2
                The British SA80 did not take off from the jambs in calculating the strength of the receiver and the fundamental lack of the possibility of belt power in a light machine gun (due to the layout of the bullpup).

                The Steir AUG line must be considered without exotics - a submachine gun whose parasitic mass is large compared to its counterparts in 9 mm caliber. If we restrict ourselves to a caliber of 5,56 mm, then a carbine, an assault rifle and a machine gun differ only in barrels (differing in weight and length), which is not modular in today's terms. The ammunition of the light machine gun is limited by the store gun because of bullpapnost. The accuracy of the self-loading rifle in 2 angular minutes (due to the roughness of the gas drive) corresponds to the Marksman, and not to the sniper.

                For comparison - the accuracy of an experienced self-loading rifle MTs-566 with a "gentle" gas drive is equal to 1 arc minute, which makes it possible to classify this specialized weapon as a sniper one.
                1. Mister X
                  20 March 2020 00: 34
                  +3
                  Quote: Operator
                  SA80 did not take off from the jambs

                  For 30 years, this complex was produced in a quantity of more than 350 thousand units.
                  Continuous and mass production.
                  You call it "Didn't take off"?
                  I agree that the SA80 complex suffered from childhood diseases for a long time, and it was modified by the Germans.
                  Quote: Operator
                  Steir AUG by today's concepts is not modularity.

                  We are discussing the 60s / 70s.
                  Was it modular at that time?
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 20 March 2020 02: 46
                    -3
                    SA80 with a folding receiver in the amount of 350 thousand - this is Britain, however laughing

                    What was called modularity by AUG in 1960-70 is today only an advertising slogan.
                    1. Mister X
                      20 March 2020 11: 03
                      +3
                      Quote: Operator
                      SA80 with foldable receiver

                      Really for 30 years the manufacturer did not guess to strengthen the box?
                      I do not presume to assert (I read for a long time), but the problem of SA80 was in automation, and not in the box.
                      Quote: Operator
                      The years 1960-70 were called modularity at AUG, today it is only an advertising slogan.

                      Now they fly into space more often than in the 60s.
                      Has the first flight of Gagarin ceased to be an important (epochal) event?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 20 March 2020 12: 59
                        0
                        The Vostok-1 spacecraft with ballistic descent in the atmosphere and ejection of an astronaut has long become only a historical rarity.
                      2. Mister X
                        20 March 2020 14: 32
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        ... with the bailout of the astronaut, has long become only a historical rarity.

                        It is now, and then - man conquered the cosmos!
                        Hitherto an unprecedented event.
                        It can be compared with the discovery of penicillin 100 years ago.

                        And in the 61st year, the flight of Gagarin was a revolutionary moment in the history of mankind?
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 20 March 2020 14: 38
                        0
                        I spoke about the relevance of technical solutions Stoner 63 and Vostok-1.
                      4. Mister X
                        20 March 2020 14: 43
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        I spoke about the relevance of technical solutions Stoner 63 and Vostok-1.

                        To listen to you - both the Poltava and Borodino battles have lost their relevance.
                        Is it there?
                      5. Operator
                        Operator 20 March 2020 14: 48
                        -3
                        How do historical events resemble technical solutions? laughing
                      6. Mister X
                        20 March 2020 14: 55
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        How do historical events resemble technical solutions?

                        We are discussing the term "relevance".
                        Or is it applicable only in the technical field?
                      7. Operator
                        Operator 20 March 2020 14: 56
                        0
                        Within the technosphere, however.
                      8. Mister X
                        20 March 2020 15: 10
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        Within the technosphere, however.

                        Stop broadcasting like a Delphic oracle.
                        Answer vaguely, like a politician - you will be on the podium of the State Duma or on TV.

                        I am sure that the term "actual" is applicable in science, technology, politics, and art.
                        - The discovery of penicillin was relevant for the first half of the 20th century?
                        Let me remind you what they wrote in the press then:
                        “For the defeat of fascism and the liberation of France, he made more entire divisions.”
                        - Was the song "Holy War" relevant for the summer of 41?
                        After all, from the first days of the war she raised the spirit of the Soviet people.

                        There are arguments - state.
                        You can keep trivial replicas with you.
  3. English tarantas
    English tarantas 20 March 2020 10: 59
    +3
    SVD has an accuracy of much less than 1 minute, but no one calls it a Marxman. The lack of tape power does not prevent the PKK from being a machine gun.
    1. Foul skeptic
      Foul skeptic 20 March 2020 12: 23
      +3
      Factory qualification of SVD - five shots should lie at 100 meters in a circle of 8 cm in diameter. That's 2,76 arc minutes. Maybe instead of "much less than 1 minute" you meant "much worse than 1 minute"?
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas 20 March 2020 15: 22
        0
        The adjective "less" refers to the word precision. If you put a minus, remove it, it is unfair, I am not responsible for your misunderstanding.
        1. Foul skeptic
          Foul skeptic 20 March 2020 15: 57
          +3
          I do not put cons, so if you care about the rating, I will give you a plus - it’s not hard for me, but you will be calmer.
          PS my misunderstanding is the result of your proposal construction))
  • English tarantas
    English tarantas 20 March 2020 11: 13
    +1
    Add FN SCAR and TAR-21, if those that were originally thought of as modular. And those that became modular in the future should only be said about the AR-15 and HK 416-417.
    1. Mister X
      20 March 2020 17: 07
      +1
      Quote: English tarantass
      And those that became modular in the future should only be said about the AR-15 and HK 416-417

      hi HK 416 - I do not argue.
      But for what reason did AR-15 come to be considered modular? Especially considering the specific butt.
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas 21 March 2020 07: 16
        0
        Not a butt, but a tubular guide for the return spring and the butt. Due to the expired production rights at Colt, private traders have already made such a designer from the AR-15. Do you want a carbine, do you want a rifle, do you want CQB, do you want 7,62, about the fore-end, butts and arms I am generally silent. To rebuild a weapon into another, just change one of the receivers, to which everything you need at the factory is attached.
        1. Mister X
          21 March 2020 09: 58
          0
          Quote: English tarantass
          forearm, butts and arms generally silent.

          This is true, even Mosinka is being converted to bullpup.
          Quote: English tarantass
          To rebuild a weapon into another, just change one of the receivers,

          I personally use the term "custom tuning", not modularity.
          1. English tarantas
            English tarantas 21 March 2020 10: 09
            0
            I personally use the term "custom tuning", not modularity.

            Well, in general, the AR-15 is a controversial thing. I just look at modularity not so much as the interchangeability of parts, modules and blocks, but as the ability of weapons in the field to be rebuilt in accordance with other tasks inherent in other classes, and correspond to these tasks, but the first point cannot be ruled out, it is fundamental in the term "modularity"
          2. Mister X
            21 March 2020 10: 21
            0
            Quote: English Tarantas
            the ability of weapons in the field to be rebuilt in accordance with other tasks

            At the beginning of the article, an attempt is made to construct a machine gun based on AR-ki.
            Apparently, did not live up to expectations.
          3. English tarantas
            English tarantas 21 March 2020 11: 42
            0
            Well, when it was. Current arches have characteristics much higher than before. There are drum shops, we change the spring and the buffer, we put the upper receiver with a thickened barrel and a reinforced gas block - the machine gun is ready. HK 416 in this regard is better due to the use of a piston in the gas unit, but otherwise almost the same AR. But this is in terms of modularity, since initially it was planned to use the Colt LMG as a machine gun, and not as something of which, if necessary, you can assemble a rifle or carbine, we are talking about an open weapon architecture, otherwise LMG needs to be compared with a PKK . Colt LMGs were designed with the goal of optimizing production, not interchangeability of parts. Again, the non-acceptance of the AR-15-based light machine gun can be due to many factors: the dampness and lack of stability of the AR itself, the cartridge, just the military’s wishlist, we won’t accept everything, at the same time there was no fashion for modularity.
          4. Mister X
            21 March 2020 12: 55
            0
            Quote: English tarantass
            HK 416 is better in this regard

            Because it was originally designed as a plug-in module for installation on any lower part of the M4 or M16 receiver.
            Quote: English Tarantas
            Colt LMG was planned to be used as a machine gun

            In the photo above, I posted the AR-10 SAW, the article also has the AR-10 LMG.
            But this is Colt LMG
          5. English tarantas
            English tarantas 21 March 2020 16: 24
            +1
            In the photo above, I posted the AR-10 SAW, the article also has the AR-10 LMG.
            But this is Colt LMG

            Thank you, and then just do not mention.
          6. Mister X
            21 March 2020 16: 31
            +1
            Quote: English tarantass
            Thank you, and then just do not mention.

            I myself would be confused if not for the long work on the material on the topic wink
  • bunta
    bunta 20 March 2020 08: 52
    +3
    Quote: Operator
    modularity was carried out by "trophy" German gunsmiths in Izhevsk, on the instructions of the GRAU MVS USSR, who created layouts and technological documentation for organizing the production of a unified line of automatic machine - self-loading rifle - light machine gun single / double feed (the developments were used in the production of AKM, RPK and PM) ...

    There are lies, blatant lies and fantasies of the "Operator".
    1. Operator
      Operator 20 March 2020 13: 13
      -4
      "Trophy" German gunsmiths (with the exception of Hugo Schmeisser) in 1946-52 at Izhmash, on the instructions of the USV GAU MVS USSR, continued the topic they were doing in their homeland in 1945


      An illustration of similar developments by "captured" gunsmiths was published in one of the Russian print magazines in the 1990s.
  • Mister X
    19 March 2020 19: 54
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    The main thing in the weapon is not the appearance, but the internal content.

    The main thing in the weapon is reliability!
    And then accuracy, price, convenience, etc.
    Do you agree?
    1. Operator
      Operator 19 March 2020 20: 48
      0
      Actually, it’s also a resource.

      Now there are no unreliable weapons from leading manufacturers (KK, NK, FN).

      Priorities depend on the operator - for Africa alone (price), for civilized countries others (accuracy of automatic firing from uncomfortable positions).
      1. Mister X
        19 March 2020 21: 21
        +4
        Quote: Operator
        Actually, it’s also a resource.

        There is such a thing.
        Suppose I bought a weapon with a declared resource of 50 thousand shots.
        But for some reason, it stopped working after the first shots.
        Why do I need a weapon with a high resource, if it is unreliable?

        Quote: Operator
        Priorities depend on the operator - for Africa alone (price), for civilized countries others

        I agree, but in part.
        Major conflicts (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) - troops of civilized countries participated there.
        That their heaped firing weapons do not jam from dirt and dust - should it be reliable?
        1. Korax71
          Korax71 20 March 2020 01: 40
          0
          I do not agree a bit hi in any manual on small business there is a clear regulation of proper maintenance. you will not find there data on how much dirt, dust, water, etc. can be put into a working mechanism. Reliability implies failure-free operation under observance of operating conditions. Agree that being in your right mind at a certain level of training, in conditions of direct contact with the enemy, no one will experiment with the part: if I drop the store in the mud, I’ll step on him twice, and then I’ll join !!! will I get a delay or not lol depends on the performance of the entrusted weapons in combat conditions: 1-life, 2-performance of a combat mission. because any pollution increases the chance of failure of even the most reliable weapons, and at the most inopportune moment. you cited Vietnam as one of the examples, the most vivid .. in the literature there is a lot of material about the unreliability of the M16, everything rested on the mismatch of ammunition, and, kind of, a marketing move, on the optional service. It ended very poorly, but after the supply of the appropriate ammunition to the troops, it belonged cleaning, as well as carrying out work with the personnel about the correct service, the problem was solved.
          1. Mister X
            20 March 2020 01: 47
            +3
            Quote: Korax71
            you will not find there data on how much dirt, dust, water

            Here you are right. Call it undocumented data.

            Quote: Korax71
            the unreliability of M16, everything rested on the mismatch of ammunition

            The other day I will publish a fragment of Stoner 63A: the first days in battle.
            There will be about the malfunctions of the new system in real combat conditions.

            A weapon must be cleaned.
            Even a bayonet-knife.
            1. Korax71
              Korax71 20 March 2020 04: 25
              +2
              Here I more than agree with regard to cleaning and care. drinks the experience of military operation, especially in combat conditions always makes adjustments to the design of small arms and indeed weapons. hi I liked the article, we will wait to continue. good
              1. Mister X
                20 March 2020 11: 16
                +2
                Quote: Korax71
                I liked the article, we will wait to continue.

                hi Thank you!
                I sent part 2 to the editor, but it was returned for revision.
                There was a dispute over the design of the title, and the captions to the pictures ...
    2. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 19 March 2020 21: 21
      +2
      Quote: Mister X
      The main thing in the weapon is reliability!

      Stoner didn’t shoot from a machine gun, but FN MAG was a tool. there was a time.

      1. Mister X
        19 March 2020 21: 36
        +5
        Quote: Maki Avellievich
        but FN MAG it was a tool.

        hi They have old accounts from the late 70s.
        Stoner 63 machine gun participated in the competition for the program Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW).
        Won the M249 SAW (FN Minimi version).
        1. Maki Avellevich
          Maki Avellevich 20 March 2020 11: 12
          +2
          Quote: Mister X
          Won the M249 SAW (FN Minimi version).

          I personally (although I admit that this is possible because I used it as a young soldier) I prefer 7,62 over 5,56.
          I remember when the MAG scribbled one night in 2000, if I’m not mistaken, between Bitunia and Ramallah
          somehow it became calmer on the soul.
          we covered ourselves more with grass and luck, and they settled in a two-story house.
          block wall shot well. which resolved the issue.
          It was a powerful unit, reliable.
          1. Mister X
            20 March 2020 12: 44
            +3
            Quote: Maki Avellievich
            block wall shot well. which resolved the issue.

            The opinion of a fought soldier is the most valuable comment!
  • English tarantas
    English tarantas 20 March 2020 10: 41
    +1
    The AR-15 was not revolutionary at all, open the Stg-44, change the cartridge and gas exhaust system (which were already used) and get the Revolution in small arms.
    1. Operator
      Operator 20 March 2020 13: 23
      0
      ... as well as metal and receiver technology, closing the shutter not by tilting, but by turning, a new design of the bolt group, the location of the return spring, the use of a recoil buffer, a new cocking mechanism, etc. etc. laughing

      Ax soup.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 19 March 2020 19: 10
    +2
    Thank you, it was interesting to read!)
    1. Mister X
      19 March 2020 19: 31
      +5
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Thank you, it was interesting to read!)

      hi
      You are welcome!
      I'm preparing a continuation ...
  • Dmitriy Zadorozhniy
    Dmitriy Zadorozhniy 19 March 2020 19: 30
    +2
    Stoner's scheme, with proper cartridges, working. But! For a trained user. You can compare with S.V.T. In the 40s of the 20th century. Border guards and marines used to the full, and refused to change. But the infantry did not enter. And about 5,45. And read the ammunition nomenclature. From 7 n. Oooochen far gone.
    1. Mister X
      19 March 2020 19: 37
      +3
      Quote: Dmitriy Zadorozhniy
      Stoner's scheme, with proper cartridges, working. But! For a trained user.

      hi I agree.
      The sequel will describe the situation faced by the fighters in Vietnam.
      Quote: Dmitriy Zadorozhniy
      From 7 n.

      I am interested in exploring the topic.
      What kind of 7 n.?
      1. Korax71
        Korax71 20 March 2020 04: 34
        +4
        Probably meant 5.45ps (7n6) hi
        1. Mister X
          20 March 2020 11: 28
          +2
          Quote: Korax71
          Probably meant 5.45ps (7n6)

          Thanks for the tip!
          Dmitry probably wrote from the phone, it’s not very convenient to use there wink
  • Catfish
    Catfish 19 March 2020 20: 47
    +3
    Thank you Michael! hi
    Honestly, I did not expect that there would be an article specifically about this weapon of Stoner. Leafed through, read and simply rejoiced. smile
    While still serving in the army, in the year 67-68, I found a large article about this system in the Foreign Military Review, tore it out of the magazine and sent it home with an opportunity, but, unfortunately, the opportunity did not reach Moscow. And there is a feeling that many of the photos in your article are taken from that magazine, though the print is much better here.
    I hope that the continuation will not be particularly delayed.
    1. Mister X
      19 March 2020 21: 27
      +4
      Quote: Sea Cat
      Thank you Michael!

      hi You are welcome! Very nice!
      I started to work about 5 years ago, but then stalled.
      He returned to the topic last winter, and since then has dug up the bulk of the data.
      There were 100 pages with pictures.
      Now it’s scary to imagine what kind of cutlet I published 5 years ago ...

      Quote: Sea Cat
      there is a feeling that many of the photos in your article were taken from that magazine

      I suspect that all b / w photos were taken from one archive, and replicated according to specialized directories.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 19 March 2020 21: 35
        +1
        By the way, in the seventies I read the book of a "green beret" who fled to the GDR, Sergeant Donald Duncan, if I'm not mistaken. Based on his own experience, he spoke in detail about the organization and methods of operation of the "berets" in Vietnam. Americans and South Vietnamese specialists. It was there that he also remembered this Stoner machine gun in the sense that the Yankees preferred it to any other weapon of this class. hi .
        1. Mister X
          19 March 2020 21: 40
          +4
          Quote: Sea Cat
          spoke in detail about the organization and methods of action of the "berets" in Vietnam.

          In my article there will also be memoirs of participants, and photos from family archives.
          But I have a focus on weapons.
  • Operator
    Operator 19 March 2020 22: 26
    -3
    Quote: Mister X
    That their heaped firing weapons do not jam from dirt and dust - should it be reliable?

    That's what I'm saying that now the issue of reliability has been completely resolved in weapons from leading manufacturers - Concern Kalashnikov, Heckler und Koch and Fabrik National. Competition is proceeding on other indicators.
    1. Mister X
      19 March 2020 23: 12
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      reliability issue completely resolved in weapons from leading manufacturers

      That is, manufacturers first solved the main question: with reliability, and then proceeded to the rest.
      Priority for completing tasks.
      Is not it?
      1. Operator
        Operator 19 March 2020 23: 19
        0
        In terms of the sequence of providing key indicators of hand-held small arms, the KK (formerly Izhmash) is sharply different from the HC and the Federal Law: the first first resolved the issue of reliability, and only then proceeded to solve all the others, the second, exactly the opposite.
        1. Mister X
          20 March 2020 00: 23
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          the first first solved the issue of reliability, and only then proceeded to solve all the others, the second - exactly the opposite.

          Here i agree drinks
    2. The comment was deleted.