Show this to the “AR10s are only for long range shooting” robots out there. The AR10 is obviously a battle rifle. It can shoot long range, but it was meant to make hamburger out of people.
Makes one think of what might have been...The M14 is a good rifle, but was a dead-end in development. Look how popular the AR family has become over 50+ years. Tradition dies hard and the wheels of government turn slowly...
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 no, it's all politically proving oneself to be spectacular in front of the Soviet for nothing. M1 Garand, symbol of the US victory in WWII. T44, the successor of the M1 Garand that is also American made. why American-made AR-10 or Belgian made FAL? nah! thus, the T44 becomes the M14.
@@hoppinggnomethe4154 It wasn't about politics, it was the fact that the logistics were already established from the M1 Garand which transitioned over to the M14 well. No one felt a need for the M16 initially because we had the M1 Carbine. Unlike a private business, retooling and training people to produce a different weapon is not simple or cheap. A military has to have everything from armorers, spare parts, and ammunition logistics (stockpiles and packaging) established. Only SOF can just pick up any gee whiz product and run it because the entire active SO community is like only 30k people and largely compartmentalized in function with little crossover. So it was bureaucracy, for better or worse.
The story behind the missed opportunity that was the Armalite AR10 is a bit more-nuanced and complex than that. You're correct, but there's more to the story. Armalite had the rifles ready for the service rifle trials being conducted in the mid-1950s, and they submitted a batch of rifles in competition with other designs, which included what became the M-14 and also the FN FAL. Armalite's design impressed a great many ordnance officers and others present at the testing, and had done very well part-way through the process... but then fate intervened. Over the strident objections of head engineer Eugene Stoner, Armalite CEO George Sullivan ordered that one of the test group rifles should be an experimental laminated barrel version of the AR10, which was lighter than the others, but relatively untested. During endurance and destructive testing, it was this laminate barrel AR which failed catastrophically when its barrel burst or split. Armalite immediately sent over a standard-type non-laminate barrel rifle to replace it, but the damage had been done and the company was not selected for the next round of testing and evaluation. In brief, then, it isn't cronyism which cost Armalite its chance at the contract, but a very poor decision by Armalite's CEO. Whether the futuristic design would have been selected or not is open to question, but the point is that it never got that far because of Sullivan's decision.
3. And the original AR10 does have a combat record - and a good one - with Portuguese Army units in Angola and Mozambique in the 60's and 70's. The sales were never large - maybe 6,000 units total - but that was only because the Portuguese didn't need more than that, and the AR10 was compratively expensive for the day, without very large orders.
A few years ago, an expert on Aramlite AR10s did a lengthy article and test of several of the type for "Firearms News" magazine, including ones made for the Sudanese, Portuguese, and other contracts. The reviewer - whose name I can't recall, my apologies - enthused over how modern these sixty year rifles old looked, felt and operated, and he stated that they really lacked nothing save perhaps an accessory rail and provision for optic sights, in comparison to present-day large-frame AR rifles. Stoner's design was literally a half-century ahead of its time. The Pentagon could do a lot worse than adopt a modernized version of these rifles. They won't, but they're that good.
Because of the weight of the ammunition-load; the 7,62x51 is heavier than 5,56 where as the "effects" on human body from the average distance from which firefights occur are very similar. So the Army decided to switch from the heavy to light ammo, but there are soldiers in Afghanistan that requested Ar10 or, if not available, M14 in order to fight in mountain environment
Kinetic energy is calculated as one-half the mass times the velocity squared. Since the original 55-grain slug used in the 5.56x45mm cartridge was so light in comparison to its larger .30-caliber cousins, Eugene Stoner and his team had to compensate performance-wise with higher velocity. Since the army's automatic light rifle project called for a .22-caliber weapon, that was a given. Stoner had to find a way to make that work. He did it by pumping up velocity. The MV of M193 55-grain rounds from a 20-inch barrel is around 3240 fps. Which was quite impressive, particularly at that time. However, there was a trade-off involved, which is that the original M193 round relied on sufficient velocity for its terminal (target) effects, namely the velocity of the bullet had to be high-enough to induce bullet fragmentation or shattering. Inside 150-yards or so, with fragmentation, the wounding potential of the round was very good, but at longer ranges, the lethality of the projectile became less-reliable. This is all within the design parameters of an assault rifle like the M-16, which is designed to be optimally-effective inside 200-300 yards. Advances in ammunition design, faster twist barrels, and other variables have allowed the AR platform to become more-lethal at longer ranges than Stoner probably ever envisioned, but it still does not hit as hard at medium to long range as larger caliber weapons in the 7.62x51/.308 class or greater. Afghan tribesmen learned to engage U.S. and allied forces from beyond the optimal range of their battle carbines and assault rifles chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, or from 300 yards or more away, knowing that this reduced their small arms effectiveness somewhat. This is why the call went out for those old Cold War-era rifles in 7.62x51mm NATO to be taken out of mothballs and sent over there. They needed longer reach in the wide-open spaces of the desert and mountains. This is also why the call went out for even longer-reach, i.e., 300 Win-Mag, 338 Lapua Mag, 50 BMG, etc. - because they sometimes needed to reach way out there, beyond what even 7.62 NATO could do.
The AR-10 really was a distinct and modern rifle and a departure from wood stocked firearms, truly a technological advance. The flash hider was not far from being a suppressor.
The original AR 10 were manufactured in small amounts by the Dutch in the late 1950's.There is an adjustable gas port on the front sight base for all the different Nato loads.Although there is no windage adjustment on the rear sights-unlike the AR15 series, they are remarkably accurate.Magazines are very light and empties dont always slip out without assistance.Recoil is very manageable.
The 7.62mm nato round may be a superior round in terms of ballistics but thats not the only reason a round is selected. The main reason 5.56mm was chosen was to allow soldiers to carry a much greater amount of ammunition and enable them to lay down a greater volume of fire without worrying about resupply as much. The Russians did the same thing as well with the 5.45x39mm and most of the countries using FALs and G3s now use other rifles firing 5.56mm.
this Rifle is the father of all occidental existing today's rifles, he lead sure to the famous M16 but all of his characteristics were the base of all today's rifle, as the place of the bolt actionner, like on the FA-MAS as the bolt catcher on every M16 family's rifle, even on the germans HK 416 and eventually, plastics parts on almost all today's rifles, US Military commandments make the mistake to rejects the rifle and it still a mistake to not adopt him today, because now we are looking again for a rifle with big stopping power with the introduction of the HK 417 and others .308 rifles. If the AR-10 didn't birth, none of our actuals rifles would have existed.
The turks, the Greeks and other "poor" NATO countries were right to not abandon the battle rifle (heck Turkey made a new one based on the design of the HK 417 whitch is based on the Armalite family of rifles)
Interesting--note it is called a CARRYING HANDLE even in this early prototype. Those who say it was solely designed to protect the charging handle are incorrect.
And his design wasn't his. The bolt, operation and basic design was that of an old friend of his Melvin Johnson. Johnson got his model 1941 adopted by the USMC, and several other countries and when Johnson Automatics, of Cranston Arms went under he went to work for his friend Stoner who used the 41 Johnson rifle bolt design, carrier design and in stock buffer design for the AR. I'd give more credit to Johnson than to stoner.
@@bad74maverick1 Melvin Johnson absolutely did *not* invent the direct impingement internal piston operation of the AR-10; which is its core feature. Eugene Stoner did go with the radial lug bolt due to Johnson's work, but Mel didn't even invent it: radial lugs were already on the rifles created by Gen. Manuel Mondragón, and even earlier on the Fosberry pump-action shotgun. Johnson's only real innovation was the in line recoil, which unfortunately did very little to make the M1941 Johnson LMG a comfortable shooting weapon. Stoner put that element to better use in his own gun.
@@ostiariusalpha where did I say that Melvin Johnson invented the impingement design? did I say that? no I didn't I mentioned the bolt design and the in stock buffer design that was made by Johnson in this 41 model that stoner used after employing him. Now with that misstep in your comment out of the way, Johnson went to work for Stoner and stoner used Johnson's design for his gun. The automatic (non pump version nor the overly complicated one that Johnson didn't base his design on by Mondragón that has no argument here) bolt system of locking and unlocking that stoner used was of Johnsons design. As was the buffer tube in the stock design. It's actually quite noted as such. I never said Johnson invented anything I said stoner used Johnsons design (bolt and buffer) which is factual. Stoner in fact didn't invent the core of his rifle, the direct impingement. A swede and a Frenchman did decades before he did. He just did what Johnson did and simplified and slightly improved it then employed the design into his weapon. stoners notes even include: PxA=F P= pressure being applied to the area A= area the pressure is acting on F= force Fbe+Fc=Fb+Fbl Fbe=Force on barrel extension lugs Fc= Force from chamber thrust Fb= Force from bolt to gas system Fbl= Force bolt lugs. Almost directly copied from the Swedes drawings of the D.I. from years before!
@@bad74maverick1 When you use the term "operation" that refers to whether the firearm is blowback, delayed, recoil, or gas operated. If you were using the term in an nontechnical sense, than there is nothing to really argue about; though it doesn't change that the M1941 and AR-10 do not operate the same. Direct impingement is a diverse subclass of gas operation: long stroke piston systems (such as the Mondragón, M1 Garand, and AK) are in fact a division of the direct impingement type of operation, though they are clearly different from the direct impingement type used by the Ag m/42 and MAS-49/56 (an offset, fixed piston/gas nipple), and both are separate from the internal piston division of direct impingement which Stoner quite brilliantly conceived of. The internal piston is a truly novel advancement of how to use direct impingement, much more conceptually sophisticated and mechanically elegant than the fixed piston of the Swedish and French designs. The formula you mention is used by *all* gas operated guns, well beyond the direct impingement subclass. Lastly, the Mondragón is actually not all that complex of a design, it uses a long stroke piston to cam the bolt; the Mondragón has the cam pin in the bolt carrier and the cam path in the bolt. This is inverted in Stoner's action (cam pin in bolt, cam path in bolt carrier), but the two are more similar to each other than with Johnson's gun, which has two cam lugs instead.
@@ostiariusalpha The bolt is part of the operation of the firearm. Not just the gas system. for the second time I'm not arguing the direct impingement is that of stoners. The Johnson used a 2 lug cam system with 6 locking lugs and a buffer tube in the buttstock. If you hold the breech of a 41 Johnson up to an AR 15 they look almost identical except dimensions are a bit smaller on one. again I'm not arguing the gas system I am speaking solely on the bolt design, and it is that of what Johnson used on his 41 model and stoner employed on his AR. From Johnsons book: "The Infantry Journal" series "Weapons For The Future" "in the future our fighting rifle would be a small bore (smaller than .30 cal.) with a straight line stock, with the sights mounted high above the bore..." And directly from excerpts from Armalite: "The multi-lug rotating bolt and bolt locking extension on the barrel of the AR-15 can directly be attributed to that of the Johnson rifle." "Having some of the components based in the M.Johnson designs was practical as the M8 X01 prototype used a 8 lug bolt and using the same barrel and barrel extension to lock the 8 lug bolt in to it would make possible to make the receiver much lighter" "The design influences from M.Johnson are not only seen in the use of a 8 lug bolt and barrel/barrel extension but also in the layout of the bolt carrier used in the M8 X01 and X02. The gun which Gene was looking for...was actually Gene Stoner’s M8, which later became the AR-10. It was the only one that was in .30-06 rather than .308. It had a steel receiver." www.forgottenweapons.com/johnson-model-1941-rifle/ 4 minutes and 40 seconds into the video. 11 minutes and 40 seconds into the video again. I have a semi auto 604 built on a NoDak receiver that I got as a parts kit and I love it. I have a first run 41 no letter prefix no bolt hold open Johnson and I love it too. They are both in the top class of my military gun collection. As for the Mondragón, it looks a little more complicated to me but I don't have much experience with them, so if it's not as complicated as it looks I'll have to take your word for it.
exactly, all throughout Stoner's career people constantly tried to sabotage his works because it did not agree with their own philosophies. for example, you can not tell me that in the late 60's the military just forgot to, or tried to save money by not chrome lineing the M-16 bores and providing correct powders. It is truly a mirical that we continued to use the design. I like the M14 and garand, Garand's design is wonderful, but when it comes to what was needed and what is needed now, Stoner
Stoner wanted to include chrome lining, but the Pentagon/DOD and army ordnance turned him down. MacNamara and his "whiz kids" and their slide-rules....
oh my brother in christ, the bullshit Stoner had to deal with was merely the tip of the fucking iceberg when it comes to Cold War US Weapon aqusition. compared to the hell that the Navy had in the 70s, Stoner and Armalite got treated with soft hands and kitty gloves.
2. The stellite barrel was actually part of a composite barrel design, with a liner of conventional steel inside a Stellite tube. The pressure was all wrong, and Stoner objected, because he knew the design would fail. Even after a conventional, all-steel barrel was fitted, and the test rerun, the Army happily declared that it would take a minimum of 5 yrs to "fix" the rifle.
IIRC the Army was semi-right, without the US Army's own funds, the more limited run of AR10's did have teething issues (though it was nowhere near as bad as the M14 or M16 did) in hindsight, it was also likely that Armalite had unintentionally run into what in actuality was a politicking roadblock and the army had already set their sights on the M14
2. was the normal practice of the OD in general, and had been for decades. Even then, OD soured the mass AR15 buy, by ordering changes and running lines of dialogue to the troops ("The rifle that cleans itself!") that Armalite had no knowledge of, and was livid about when they found out...And heads rolled at the OD over that, as well, when McNamara found out about it.
"Firing the AR-10 in a complete absence of lubricants has, in any country where his test has taken place, has far exceeded any requirements. the AR-10 will fire far longer without cleaning and oiling than any other known rifle." Behold, the Origins of the Vietnam no-cleaning required myth that led to so many problems. typical marketing speech carefully omitting that its still a very bad idea.
even then, the AR-10 was far less issue prone then the M16 and the M16's no-cleaning myth also stems from the fact that the prototype used a special self-cleaning ammunition that (obviously) wasn't adopted.
@Naghelfar1 The military contract for the first batch of M16s was rushed; the bore wasn't chromed, the military for some reason thought the design was self-cleaning so no cleaning instructions or kits were issued, and worst of all dirtier ball powder was substituted for the proper stick powder. Most of the issues with the M-16 were resolved by the end of Vietnam with the M16A1, proper training, and better ammo.
@marcab1an If I remember correctly because they tried an aluminum barrel to further cut weight and it exploded. Instead of going back to a steel barrel they scraped it in the US.
Love the old LooneyTunes them music of this film. Did this gun come with a chrome barrel liner. I think I remember something about trouble in Vietnam for the m16 with dirt and corrosion in damp enviroments.
@Wabaanimkii If your really wishing to have it more cost effective, the AR-18 is the best bet and should have been the weapon we took. Its a stamped receiver rifle so its much cheaper right there. Its supposed to have been just as accurate as the typical AR-15.
Perhaps in an ideal world, the M14 and AR10 would have been developed together and issued together - one being a standard infantry weapon (AR10?) and the other a squad marksmen rifle. (M14)
The carbine version would be using 762x39 while the battle rifle version would use 762x54 The reason: in case a war breaks out, East European ammo would be compatible with your guns. I agree with you!
I have a DPMS .308. One big difference between the AR-15 vs. the AR-10 is gas, a lot of it. If you were to think of the engine of a semi/full auto rifle is the cartridge then you get my meaning. The feeding and extraction on the 7.62x.51 is more "robust" This "may" make the larger caliber gun some what more reliable. Also the gun in this "promo" is no doubt pristine and precise. Also Stoner called out for stick Propellant in the original 5.56 gun. The AR-10 may have had the same requirement?
1. When you're dealing with the Public's money, you have to allow open competition. The 10 was a late-comer to the field tests, appearing in the winter of 1955-56, when the trials had been underway for a year. The T44 was the 'in house' design that the OD wanted; it's main competitor was the T44 (the FN/FAL - a MUCH better weapon). The 10 initially overshadowed both weapons, it looked like the sure win. To make sure the T44 won, the OD cheated.
Whatever man, you stick with that. I also don't get why people think the M-16 was a "unreliable" weapon. In reality, if people hadn't fucked around when manufacturing and issuing the things, they'd have worked like a charm and a hell of a lot less people would have died.
@DaSurot Yeah, it does. Too bad this gun had so many problems, like how the barrel on the gun would melt and you would end up shooting bullets through the side of the barrel. Most of the time, the fiberglass grips would melt and the charging handle would brake. The magazine would fall out of the receiver sometimes, but at least it's better than nothing.
and the reason the US military did not accept this in trials?Beurocracy. simply put the AR-10 of the 50's and it's little brother the AR-15 are some of the best designs in firearms history,Stoner deserves much more credit then he is given. the culmination of there modern versions has been through fine tweeking of the design and has resaulted in an ergonomic rifle design of which many new systems atempt to imitate today. May I say, and others are welcome to join, Well done Mr. Stoner, well done!
@mcxznbv No the M16A4 and M4 have flattop rails. The M16A3 has the capability to mount optics on the carrying handle but it's not exactly what I would call a "rail."
What are you talking about ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt. With a simple barrel and receiver switch, this rifle can fire 14 different calibers and sizes of ammunition, ranging from .22LR to .50BMG. Completely customizable, this rifle can also be a personal defense firearm at less than 36 inches long, to a sniper rifle over 50 inches.
I love the AR design, but to lay it all on Stoner is a bit much. Melvin Johnsons bolt and carrier design in the 41 Johnson rifle was the real precursor. His rotating bolt, bolt carrier group, and in stock buffer design followed Johnson after Johnson automatics went under and he went to work for his good friend Stoner. He took his design and presented it to Stoner which would later be employed in the AR design. So I'd consider the 1941 Johnson Rifle the true precursor to the AR.
Exactly. John C. Garand himself said that It would be upto the next generation & future generations to create new & better rifles made out of new alloys and composites to ensure that the US has the best equiped infantry/populace in the world. funny that at the same time he said that in the 50s Eugene Stoner was creating the AR series of rifles. while Garand helped with the M14 it was 10 years too late. 1958 should have seen the end of Garand style rifles for GI use and the beginging of the AR.
Re: "1958 should have seen the end of Garand style rifles for GI use and the beginning of the AR." You're not wrong, but bear in mind how militaries work the world over: They are rank-conscious. The AR10 probably impressed a lot of young company grade officers as a great weapon, but their superiors, the senior officers making the decisions for army ordnance, would have been men in their fifties or even sixties. Guys with lots of rank. The man usually "blamed" for the adoption of the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge is Colonel Rene Studler. Studler was born in 1895 and died in 1980; fought in World War One. Studler, who also had a lot to do with the eventual adoption of the M-14, was almost certainly more-conservative and traditional than his younger subordinates when it came to weapons design. He'd almost have to have been, given his age, experience and rank. Armies, it has been famously said, always attempt to "fight the last war," and this is no less true when it comes to small arms development. Studler probably looked at the war-winning M-1 and decided that whatever was chosen to replace it, it should not stray too far from that example. He can be faulted for that, according to some, but it is probably unrealistic to believe that he could make any choice but the one he did. It is literally who he was.
@andromedarr I like the Ar-10 for its larger ammunition and reliability. I like the Grendel Ar15 since it fires a new 6.5mm Round which as strong as the 7.52x56mm round
@TheMexican1821 I dont think so, maybe some small army uses it, but the AR-10 has been changed to the AR-15 in the Vietnam war, in favor of the new small ammunition.
To think that if the US government was sensible, the military would have adopted this instead of the M14. Since the AR-10 was already designed around the 7.62 NATO, the jams that were experienced in Vietnam with the M16 would not have happened (since most of the failures were ammunition-related) though there would be some teething issues with mass production. This would actually mean that the .223 would never exist to become the 5.56, though I do predict that NATO would switch to a 6 mm cartridge by the 70s and 80s (FN intended the FAL to use a .270 or so caliber cartridge; Britain also had an experimental cartridge in a similar caliber that was used in the EM-2). Modern audiences should know that the standards of a "sniping rifle" back in the 50s were as strict as it is today. During World War 2, the average accuracy of a combat rifle is around 4 MOA or so, while sniper rifles were chosen from tests if the rifles can consistently pattern 2 MOA or tighter. Now, 2 MOA accuracy is pretty much the modern standard for a service rifle nowadays, and most service rifles developed around the time of the AR-10 have begun to have that accuracy. This is why the film keeps saying "the accuracy of a sniping rifle and the firepower of a machine gun."
exact;y. The Garand is the best battle implement ever devised. John Garand was briliant! his life's work was in that rifle and he truly believed in it. but when it comes down to the best rifle for today, Stoner's designs reighn supreme. I believe both garand and Browning would see light in Stoner's vision and agree with his concept of fine tuning the balance of a rifle being light, durable, erganomic, deadly, reliable. as for 30 cal it just boils down to size/weight constraints & logistics
If John Garand and John Browning lived in the late 20th century or early 21st, they would undoubtedly have embraced the changes in manufacturing techniques, advancements in materials, and design evolution in small arms. They'd have nodded with approval at what Stoner and his people did.
SAW variant would be the Stoner 63. Yes, the M14 did see combat. But my point was that very few vets actually would have had access to it. Much like SF as there seem to be millions claiming to be SF or snipers these days. Chroming prevents rust and reduces friction from debris. All AK's internals and barrels are heavily hard chromed. The M16a1 had it's chrome platings removed for cost reduction. It has been re-added since Vietnam and is on all current M4's.
@@SteveAkaDarktimes Correct. But that was quickly rectified within 2 years of it's official adoption when after action reports complained about the jamming issues. Also, it was the original M16 (XM16) which wasn't chromed while the M16a1 was the chromed version adopted in 1967. The chromed version solved all of the issues and reports following it's adoption were all positive.
wow.... how far we changed our weapons... Armalite AR10 to our more later, faithful weapons like the Robinson Armament XCR, FN HErstal SCARs, Bushmaster ACR, HK 416 and way more
And, as I had said in another comment I'd posted, if you don't understand it, in terms of cost trying to arm an entire branch of service with said rifle, I can understand that. But a solution for that which is pretty simple is this: take a couple of sample rifles, find what you like, and dislike about them, and then improve upon them and manufacture your own, licensed rifle. People have been doing that since the '50s-'60s.
Quite an amazing thing back then, and I would say that this is the forefather of almost any modern assault rifle, they all use pretty much the same operation
You're referring to the very early models of M14. By the time it was ready for introduction, it was very reliable. In Vietnam, it was just as reliable as the AK-47. The very early models had issues that even included poor thermal treatment for the barrels. But after, it was very reliable. It was always far more reliable than the AR--15/AR-10, that's for sure.
@esh325 According to the footage in this video, it sure was. I heard that the project was ruined when a barrel exploded during military testing. Either something got in the barrel during stress tests, or one of the reasons it was so light was because of that special metal that fairchild was using for the barrel, it was not conventional steel.
1. Nope. The Ordnance Department insisted that the Stellite barrels be replaced, even though Armalite had told them they didn't work. The Army wanted the M14. The AR10 came in so far ahead of it, the OD was determined to sabotage it. When the Air Force bought the AR15 - over the Army OD's strident objections - McNamara (who was just in office then) ordered an investigation of the OD. The result was the closure of Springfield Armory as a government entity, because what happened to the AR10 (cont)
Okay, the belt-to box-magazine changeover is just brilliant. Yes, it's the manufacturer talking up his own product, but there are the sand and mud tests being performed right before our eyes (inasmuch as we can tell). And this thing was not adopted because?
@marcab1an the ar 10 came too late during the trials of 1950s.it came in 1956, where as its competitors came in the late 40s, and progress had already been made in their design.the T44E4 beat the ar 10 due to promising specifications, and the ar 10 failed a reliability test. and so the T44E4 was adopted as the m14 in 1957. had the ar 10 been adopted, im sure it would have the technical problems as the early m16 did. and the m16 is almost directly based upon the ar 10. but i still agree with you
I like that charging handle. I wonder why they got rid of it? Since it's centrally located and moves with the bolt it would also act as a forward assist. Would this not make machining faster and more affordable by getting rid of that damned speedbump of an assist we have now? It would also allow full hard chroming and be ambidextrous. Why didn't you think of that?
I iwsh they adopted this as a service battle rifle alongside the M1A... it's cost efficient, and more camouflage-friendly. Also, as you said, the AR 15 jams relatively easily even today (it jammed on me), but I still don't understand their total lack of common sense of NOT issuing cleaning kits in 'Nam! Even greats like the AK need to be cleaned from time to time! In fact, the AR 10 promo says that although cleaning is not very tedious, it's still emphasises the need of having it ready!
@TheMexican1821 Special Upper Reciever and bolt. It is just like the M249 then, it can take the standart AR-15 (or in this case AR-10) Mags and ammunition belts.
@wafflecommander15 Because in Vietnam they used the AR-15 platform, not the AR-10 shown here, also, the men using the rifles often did not have the opportunity or training to properly clean and maintain their AR-15's/M-16's, thus, the jamming issue.
The US Military should've adopted the AR-10, it's way better than the M14 in all ways, I read so much about it last night with a friend and she agrees with me about how good the AR-10 is.
Correction, it wasn't MEANT to take a full power .308. The adjust the gas regulator is all you have to do. And, I said, take some sample rifles, find what you like about them, and improve upon what you dislike about them as much as possible.
@solidfreak123 any gun barrel can melt if it gets too hot, sure the pencil thin government profile barrel didnt help the situation, but the soldiers were mostly to blame because they had a tendency to use full auto and empty all magazines they had on them.
Agreed.The rotating bolt in the Garand design is Hell on brass but it's hard to kill the rifle. If .30 caliber wasn't too powerful for the first half of the 20th century,what made it too powerful for the second half?
The assault rifle revolution is what happened. Once a few nations jumped on that bandwagon with both feet, namely Germany and the USSR, it was only a matter of time before others did as well. It is fortuitous that such weapons were designed, because they fulfill a great many roles within the small arms niche of military forces, but as most armies have learned, they cannot do every job. For some jobs, an intermediate cartridge isn't enough; your troops need a full-power, full-sized center-fire rifle cartridge. Re: "If .30 caliber wasn't too powerful for the first half of the 20th century,what made it too powerful for the second half?" I'm an old dude, granted, but still, I have always found it slightly preposterous that modern soldiers, men who are supposed to be the biggest, strongest and fittest soldiers ever fielded, can't or won't field with battle rifles similar to those carried by their fathers or grandfathers, who were not only smaller, but who had survived the depression without enough to eat. If some guy who weighed 150 lbs. soaking wet could carry not just an M-1 but potentially a BAR without complaint and without issue, what the heck is the problem with modern guys doing it? From what I hear, see, and read, it is doctrine which has changed. Armies now prefer lighter weapons and larger basic ammo loads, even if that means a less-potent cartridge and a weapon with less punch. Not that anyone asked but IMO armies need both kinds of cartridges and both kinds of rifles.... why does it have to be one or the other?
Stock? Not really. Most stock issue rifles of any type aren't. The difference is that when you try to hyper-accurize the things, the AR platform stays like that while the M14 series takes constant babying. SEI was able to get sub-moa on their M14's. They just couldn't hold it under any sort of conditions outside of a clean firing range. Sage tried to improve the stock and it's passable now. But the Army only still uses it because they're available. The USMC is getting rid of theirs.
Oui. I'm sorry, but the only full-american designed rifles that I trust are the armalite ar-15 and ar-10 rifles, and the garand variants(including the m-14 series).
Eugene Stoner hipfiring an AR-10 while advancing onto a beach. An unforgettable scene.
It was him? video's fuzzy as hell.
@@Psyconaut116 lol i know right that sounds like a reach to say it’s him
That is indeed, young stoner
@@darryljames6403 :0 thats cool
Show this to the “AR10s are only for long range shooting” robots out there.
The AR10 is obviously a battle rifle. It can shoot long range, but it was meant to make hamburger out of people.
I wish movies like this were running at the local cinema.
You have to love these old 1950's/1960's weaspon movies.
Love the music too,
Watch the classic movie:
"Things to come" with Raymond Massey, same type of presentation and music.
The original AR-10 is so much cooler than any later AR could hope to be. I would give a nut to own an Armalite AR-10B right now.
Do you still hold the same sentiment?
You can have an Original type AR-10 Semiautomatic version just not select fire sadly 😢
@user-bh9vf2zu1r yes the retro top charging AR10 is still one of my favorite AR variants
Makes one think of what might have been...The M14 is a good rifle, but was a dead-end in development. Look how popular the AR family has become over 50+ years. Tradition dies hard and the wheels of government turn slowly...
In fact, it took the US gov 10 years to figure out how to make their M1 garands into short stroke and box fed rifle(M14). Gonna love the bureaucracy.
While I see your point, I still stick to m14, now 6.8 being pushed I service
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 no, it's all politically proving oneself to be spectacular in front of the Soviet for nothing. M1 Garand, symbol of the US victory in WWII. T44, the successor of the M1 Garand that is also American made. why American-made AR-10 or Belgian made FAL? nah! thus, the T44 becomes the M14.
@@hoppinggnomethe4154 It wasn't about politics, it was the fact that the logistics were already established from the M1 Garand which transitioned over to the M14 well. No one felt a need for the M16 initially because we had the M1 Carbine. Unlike a private business, retooling and training people to produce a different weapon is not simple or cheap. A military has to have everything from armorers, spare parts, and ammunition logistics (stockpiles and packaging) established. Only SOF can just pick up any gee whiz product and run it because the entire active SO community is like only 30k people and largely compartmentalized in function with little crossover.
So it was bureaucracy, for better or worse.
The story behind the missed opportunity that was the Armalite AR10 is a bit more-nuanced and complex than that. You're correct, but there's more to the story. Armalite had the rifles ready for the service rifle trials being conducted in the mid-1950s, and they submitted a batch of rifles in competition with other designs, which included what became the M-14 and also the FN FAL.
Armalite's design impressed a great many ordnance officers and others present at the testing, and had done very well part-way through the process... but then fate intervened.
Over the strident objections of head engineer Eugene Stoner, Armalite CEO George Sullivan ordered that one of the test group rifles should be an experimental laminated barrel version of the AR10, which was lighter than the others, but relatively untested.
During endurance and destructive testing, it was this laminate barrel AR which failed catastrophically when its barrel burst or split. Armalite immediately sent over a standard-type non-laminate barrel rifle to replace it, but the damage had been done and the company was not selected for the next round of testing and evaluation.
In brief, then, it isn't cronyism which cost Armalite its chance at the contract, but a very poor decision by Armalite's CEO. Whether the futuristic design would have been selected or not is open to question, but the point is that it never got that far because of Sullivan's decision.
3. And the original AR10 does have a combat record - and a good one - with Portuguese Army units in Angola and Mozambique in the 60's and 70's. The sales were never large - maybe 6,000 units total - but that was only because the Portuguese didn't need more than that, and the AR10 was compratively expensive for the day, without very large orders.
A few years ago, an expert on Aramlite AR10s did a lengthy article and test of several of the type for "Firearms News" magazine, including ones made for the Sudanese, Portuguese, and other contracts. The reviewer - whose name I can't recall, my apologies - enthused over how modern these sixty year rifles old looked, felt and operated, and he stated that they really lacked nothing save perhaps an accessory rail and provision for optic sights, in comparison to present-day large-frame AR rifles. Stoner's design was literally a half-century ahead of its time. The Pentagon could do a lot worse than adopt a modernized version of these rifles. They won't, but they're that good.
Because of the weight of the ammunition-load; the 7,62x51 is heavier than 5,56 where as the "effects" on human body from the average distance from which firefights occur are very similar. So the Army decided to switch from the heavy to light ammo, but there are soldiers in Afghanistan that requested Ar10 or, if not available, M14 in order to fight in mountain environment
Kinetic energy is calculated as one-half the mass times the velocity squared. Since the original 55-grain slug used in the 5.56x45mm cartridge was so light in comparison to its larger .30-caliber cousins, Eugene Stoner and his team had to compensate performance-wise with higher velocity.
Since the army's automatic light rifle project called for a .22-caliber weapon, that was a given. Stoner had to find a way to make that work. He did it by pumping up velocity. The MV of M193 55-grain rounds from a 20-inch barrel is around 3240 fps.
Which was quite impressive, particularly at that time.
However, there was a trade-off involved, which is that the original M193 round relied on sufficient velocity for its terminal (target) effects, namely the velocity of the bullet had to be high-enough to induce bullet fragmentation or shattering. Inside 150-yards or so, with fragmentation, the wounding potential of the round was very good, but at longer ranges, the lethality of the projectile became less-reliable.
This is all within the design parameters of an assault rifle like the M-16, which is designed to be optimally-effective inside 200-300 yards.
Advances in ammunition design, faster twist barrels, and other variables have allowed the AR platform to become more-lethal at longer ranges than Stoner probably ever envisioned, but it still does not hit as hard at medium to long range as larger caliber weapons in the 7.62x51/.308 class or greater.
Afghan tribesmen learned to engage U.S. and allied forces from beyond the optimal range of their battle carbines and assault rifles chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, or from 300 yards or more away, knowing that this reduced their small arms effectiveness somewhat.
This is why the call went out for those old Cold War-era rifles in 7.62x51mm NATO to be taken out of mothballs and sent over there. They needed longer reach in the wide-open spaces of the desert and mountains. This is also why the call went out for even longer-reach, i.e., 300 Win-Mag, 338 Lapua Mag, 50 BMG, etc. - because they sometimes needed to reach way out there, beyond what even 7.62 NATO could do.
Imagine how weird the design looked when it was first revealed...
At the time looked weird, now it just looks goofy
It didnt. It just looked like M14 with carry handle
The AR-10 really was a great advance in firearms development.
Like scifi
The AR-10 really was a distinct and modern rifle and a departure from wood stocked firearms, truly a technological advance.
The flash hider was not far from being a suppressor.
The original AR 10 were manufactured in small amounts by the Dutch in the late 1950's.There is an adjustable gas port on the front sight base for all the different Nato loads.Although there is no windage adjustment on the rear sights-unlike the AR15 series, they are remarkably accurate.Magazines are very light and empties dont always slip out without assistance.Recoil is very manageable.
The 7.62mm nato round may be a superior round in terms of ballistics but thats not the only reason a round is selected. The main reason 5.56mm was chosen was to allow soldiers to carry a much greater amount of ammunition and enable them to lay down a greater volume of fire without worrying about resupply as much. The Russians did the same thing as well with the 5.45x39mm and most of the countries using FALs and G3s now use other rifles firing 5.56mm.
That belt fed scene then switch to mag
any more info on that that’s always made me wonder.
the belt fed system was incredibly unreliable and thus it was never adopted
"Storm that beach like it's f'cking Normandy!" - Ari Gold
this Rifle is the father of all occidental existing today's rifles, he lead sure to the famous M16 but all of his characteristics were the base of all today's rifle, as the place of the bolt actionner, like on the FA-MAS as the bolt catcher on every M16 family's rifle, even on the germans HK 416 and eventually, plastics parts on almost all today's rifles, US Military commandments make the mistake to rejects the rifle and it still a mistake to not adopt him today, because now we are looking again for a rifle with big stopping power with the introduction of the HK 417 and others .308 rifles. If the AR-10 didn't birth, none of our actuals rifles would have existed.
The turks, the Greeks and other "poor" NATO countries were right to not abandon the battle rifle (heck Turkey made a new one based on the design of the HK 417 whitch is based on the Armalite family of rifles)
Interesting--note it is called a CARRYING HANDLE even in this early prototype. Those who say it was solely designed to protect the charging handle are incorrect.
Mr Stoner was a brilliant firearms designer. And Also a USMC Veteran. Great Man.
And his design wasn't his. The bolt, operation and basic design was that of an old friend of his Melvin Johnson. Johnson got his model 1941 adopted by the USMC, and several other countries and when Johnson Automatics, of Cranston Arms went under he went to work for his friend Stoner who used the 41 Johnson rifle bolt design, carrier design and in stock buffer design for the AR. I'd give more credit to Johnson than to stoner.
@@bad74maverick1 Melvin Johnson absolutely did *not* invent the direct impingement internal piston operation of the AR-10; which is its core feature. Eugene Stoner did go with the radial lug bolt due to Johnson's work, but Mel didn't even invent it: radial lugs were already on the rifles created by Gen. Manuel Mondragón, and even earlier on the Fosberry pump-action shotgun. Johnson's only real innovation was the in line recoil, which unfortunately did very little to make the M1941 Johnson LMG a comfortable shooting weapon. Stoner put that element to better use in his own gun.
@@ostiariusalpha where did I say that Melvin Johnson invented the impingement design? did I say that? no I didn't I mentioned the bolt design and the in stock buffer design that was made by Johnson in this 41 model that stoner used after employing him. Now with that misstep in your comment out of the way, Johnson went to work for Stoner and stoner used Johnson's design for his gun. The automatic (non pump version nor the overly complicated one that Johnson didn't base his design on by Mondragón that has no argument here) bolt system of locking and unlocking that stoner used was of Johnsons design. As was the buffer tube in the stock design. It's actually quite noted as such. I never said Johnson invented anything I said stoner used Johnsons design (bolt and buffer) which is factual.
Stoner in fact didn't invent the core of his rifle, the direct impingement. A swede and a Frenchman did decades before he did. He just did what Johnson did and simplified and slightly improved it then employed the design into his weapon.
stoners notes even include:
PxA=F
P= pressure being applied to the area
A= area the pressure is acting on
F= force
Fbe+Fc=Fb+Fbl
Fbe=Force on barrel extension lugs
Fc= Force from chamber thrust
Fb= Force from bolt to gas system
Fbl= Force bolt lugs.
Almost directly copied from the Swedes drawings of the D.I. from years before!
@@bad74maverick1 When you use the term "operation" that refers to whether the firearm is blowback, delayed, recoil, or gas operated. If you were using the term in an nontechnical sense, than there is nothing to really argue about; though it doesn't change that the M1941 and AR-10 do not operate the same. Direct impingement is a diverse subclass of gas operation: long stroke piston systems (such as the Mondragón, M1 Garand, and AK) are in fact a division of the direct impingement type of operation, though they are clearly different from the direct impingement type used by the Ag m/42 and MAS-49/56 (an offset, fixed piston/gas nipple), and both are separate from the internal piston division of direct impingement which Stoner quite brilliantly conceived of. The internal piston is a truly novel advancement of how to use direct impingement, much more conceptually sophisticated and mechanically elegant than the fixed piston of the Swedish and French designs. The formula you mention is used by *all* gas operated guns, well beyond the direct impingement subclass. Lastly, the Mondragón is actually not all that complex of a design, it uses a long stroke piston to cam the bolt; the Mondragón has the cam pin in the bolt carrier and the cam path in the bolt. This is inverted in Stoner's action (cam pin in bolt, cam path in bolt carrier), but the two are more similar to each other than with Johnson's gun, which has two cam lugs instead.
@@ostiariusalpha The bolt is part of the operation of the firearm. Not just the gas system. for the second time I'm not arguing the direct impingement is that of stoners. The Johnson used a 2 lug cam system with 6 locking lugs and a buffer tube in the buttstock. If you hold the breech of a 41 Johnson up to an AR 15 they look almost identical except dimensions are a bit smaller on one. again I'm not arguing the gas system I am speaking solely on the bolt design, and it is that of what Johnson used on his 41 model and stoner employed on his AR.
From Johnsons book: "The Infantry Journal" series "Weapons For The Future" "in the future our fighting rifle would be a small bore (smaller than .30 cal.) with a straight line stock, with the sights mounted high above the bore..."
And directly from excerpts from Armalite: "The multi-lug rotating bolt and bolt locking extension on the barrel of the AR-15 can directly be attributed to that of the Johnson rifle."
"Having some of the components based in the M.Johnson designs was practical as the M8 X01 prototype used a 8 lug bolt and using the same barrel and barrel extension to lock the 8 lug bolt in to it would make possible to make the receiver much lighter"
"The design influences from M.Johnson are not only seen in the use of a 8 lug bolt and barrel/barrel extension but also in the layout of the bolt carrier used in the M8 X01 and X02. The gun which Gene was looking for...was actually Gene Stoner’s M8, which later became the AR-10. It was the only one that was in .30-06 rather than .308. It had a steel receiver."
www.forgottenweapons.com/johnson-model-1941-rifle/ 4 minutes and 40 seconds into the video. 11 minutes and 40 seconds into the video again.
I have a semi auto 604 built on a NoDak receiver that I got as a parts kit and I love it. I have a first run 41 no letter prefix no bolt hold open Johnson and I love it too. They are both in the top class of my military gun collection. As for the Mondragón, it looks a little more complicated to me but I don't have much experience with them, so if it's not as complicated as it looks I'll have to take your word for it.
exactly, all throughout Stoner's career people constantly tried to sabotage his works because it did not agree with their own philosophies. for example, you can not tell me that in the late 60's the military just forgot to, or tried to save money by not chrome lineing the M-16 bores and providing correct powders. It is truly a mirical that we continued to use the design. I like the M14 and garand, Garand's design is wonderful, but when it comes to what was needed and what is needed now, Stoner
Stoner wanted to include chrome lining, but the Pentagon/DOD and army ordnance turned him down. MacNamara and his "whiz kids" and their slide-rules....
oh my brother in christ, the bullshit Stoner had to deal with was merely the tip of the fucking iceberg when it comes to Cold War US Weapon aqusition. compared to the hell that the Navy had in the 70s, Stoner and Armalite got treated with soft hands and kitty gloves.
2. The stellite barrel was actually part of a composite barrel design, with a liner of conventional steel inside a Stellite tube. The pressure was all wrong, and Stoner objected, because he knew the design would fail. Even after a conventional, all-steel barrel was fitted, and the test rerun, the Army happily declared that it would take a minimum of 5 yrs to "fix" the rifle.
IIRC the Army was semi-right, without the US Army's own funds, the more limited run of AR10's did have teething issues (though it was nowhere near as bad as the M14 or M16 did) in hindsight, it was also likely that Armalite had unintentionally run into what in actuality was a politicking roadblock and the army had already set their sights on the M14
2. was the normal practice of the OD in general, and had been for decades. Even then, OD soured the mass AR15 buy, by ordering changes and running lines of dialogue to the troops ("The rifle that cleans itself!") that Armalite had no knowledge of, and was livid about when they found out...And heads rolled at the OD over that, as well, when McNamara found out about it.
This is fantastic. Thanks for posting.
A fine weapon, you can see the family heratige down to the modern a4. Once good, always good.
Thanks for posting this!
"Firing the AR-10 in a complete absence of lubricants has, in any country where his test has taken place, has far exceeded any requirements. the AR-10 will fire far longer without cleaning and oiling than any other known rifle."
Behold, the Origins of the Vietnam no-cleaning required myth that led to so many problems. typical marketing speech carefully omitting that its still a very bad idea.
even then, the AR-10 was far less issue prone then the M16 and the M16's no-cleaning myth also stems from the fact that the prototype used a special self-cleaning ammunition that (obviously) wasn't adopted.
partially true but there was also an issue of poor technology of chrome plating that flaked off
@Naghelfar1 The military contract for the first batch of M16s was rushed; the bore wasn't chromed, the military for some reason thought the design was self-cleaning so no cleaning instructions or kits were issued, and worst of all dirtier ball powder was substituted for the proper stick powder. Most of the issues with the M-16 were resolved by the end of Vietnam with the M16A1, proper training, and better ammo.
We've come a long way since then. Cool video.
@marcab1an
If I remember correctly because they tried an aluminum barrel to further cut weight and it exploded. Instead of going back to a steel barrel they scraped it in the US.
This ArmaLite AR-10 riffle promotional film was briefly featured in Frontline: After Uvalde - Guns, Grief & Texas Politics on PBS.
Somehow I keep thinking this commercial would fit Fallout perfectly.
Perfect for the Fallout aesthetic
I love 💟 the vintage nostalgic music 🎶 so historical 😢 sigh
Love the old LooneyTunes them music of this film. Did this gun come with a chrome barrel liner. I think I remember something about trouble in Vietnam for the m16 with dirt and corrosion in damp enviroments.
@Wabaanimkii
If your really wishing to have it more cost effective, the AR-18 is the best bet and should have been the weapon we took. Its a stamped receiver rifle so its much cheaper right there. Its supposed to have been just as accurate as the typical AR-15.
Perhaps in an ideal world, the M14 and AR10 would have been developed together and issued together - one being a standard infantry weapon (AR10?) and the other a squad marksmen rifle. (M14)
The carbine version would be using 762x39 while the battle rifle version would use 762x54 The reason: in case a war breaks out, East European ammo would be compatible with your guns. I agree with you!
I have a DPMS .308. One big difference between the AR-15 vs. the AR-10 is gas, a lot of it. If you were to think of the engine of a semi/full auto rifle is the cartridge then you get my meaning. The feeding and extraction on the 7.62x.51 is more "robust" This "may" make the larger caliber gun some what more reliable.
Also the gun in this "promo" is no doubt pristine and precise. Also Stoner called out for stick Propellant in the original 5.56 gun. The AR-10 may have had the same requirement?
1. When you're dealing with the Public's money, you have to allow open competition. The 10 was a late-comer to the field tests, appearing in the winter of 1955-56, when the trials had been underway for a year. The T44 was the 'in house' design that the OD wanted; it's main competitor was the T44 (the FN/FAL - a MUCH better weapon). The 10 initially overshadowed both weapons, it looked like the sure win. To make sure the T44 won, the OD cheated.
Patrolling the mojave makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
"The entire disassembly of the AR-10 can be accomplished within two minutes without the use of tools"
*Picks up a tool*
@Aaron Neville Yeah, he used it as a tool.
Whatever man, you stick with that. I also don't get why people think the M-16 was a "unreliable" weapon. In reality, if people hadn't fucked around when manufacturing and issuing the things, they'd have worked like a charm and a hell of a lot less people would have died.
@DaSurot Yeah, it does. Too bad this gun had so many problems, like how the barrel on the gun would melt and you would end up shooting bullets through the side of the barrel. Most of the time, the fiberglass grips would melt and the charging handle would brake. The magazine would fall out of the receiver sometimes, but at least it's better than nothing.
Thank you Zach.
AR stands for Armalite Rifle. They still make fantastic products.
and the reason the US military did not accept this in trials?Beurocracy. simply put the AR-10 of the 50's and it's little brother the AR-15 are some of the best designs in firearms history,Stoner deserves much more credit then he is given. the culmination of there modern versions has been through fine tweeking of the design and has resaulted in an ergonomic rifle design of which many new systems atempt to imitate today. May I say, and others are welcome to join, Well done Mr. Stoner, well done!
@mcxznbv No the M16A4 and M4 have flattop rails. The M16A3 has the capability to mount optics on the carrying handle but it's not exactly what I would call a "rail."
What are you talking about ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt. With a simple barrel and receiver switch, this rifle can fire 14 different calibers and sizes of ammunition, ranging from .22LR to .50BMG. Completely customizable, this rifle can also be a personal defense firearm at less than 36 inches long, to a sniper rifle over 50 inches.
If I'm not mistaken, today the AR-10 lacks standardization across manufacturers, whereas the AR-15 parts are generally about 100% interchangeable.
I love the AR design, but to lay it all on Stoner is a bit much. Melvin Johnsons bolt and carrier design in the 41 Johnson rifle was the real precursor. His rotating bolt, bolt carrier group, and in stock buffer design followed Johnson after Johnson automatics went under and he went to work for his good friend Stoner. He took his design and presented it to Stoner which would later be employed in the AR design. So I'd consider the 1941 Johnson Rifle the true precursor to the AR.
Exactly. John C. Garand himself said that It would be upto the next generation & future generations to create new & better rifles made out of new alloys and composites to ensure that the US has the best equiped infantry/populace in the world. funny that at the same time he said that in the 50s Eugene Stoner was creating the AR series of rifles. while Garand helped with the M14 it was 10 years too late. 1958 should have seen the end of Garand style rifles for GI use and the beginging of the AR.
Re: "1958 should have seen the end of Garand style rifles for GI use and the beginning of the AR."
You're not wrong, but bear in mind how militaries work the world over: They are rank-conscious. The AR10 probably impressed a lot of young company grade officers as a great weapon, but their superiors, the senior officers making the decisions for army ordnance, would have been men in their fifties or even sixties. Guys with lots of rank.
The man usually "blamed" for the adoption of the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge is Colonel Rene Studler. Studler was born in 1895 and died in 1980; fought in World War One. Studler, who also had a lot to do with the eventual adoption of the M-14, was almost certainly more-conservative and traditional than his younger subordinates when it came to weapons design. He'd almost have to have been, given his age, experience and rank.
Armies, it has been famously said, always attempt to "fight the last war," and this is no less true when it comes to small arms development. Studler probably looked at the war-winning M-1 and decided that whatever was chosen to replace it, it should not stray too far from that example. He can be faulted for that, according to some, but it is probably unrealistic to believe that he could make any choice but the one he did. It is literally who he was.
I never said it was, it is something relatively familiar in the way of a rifle. That's why the FAL.
@andromedarr I like the Ar-10 for its larger ammunition and reliability. I like the Grendel Ar15 since it fires a new 6.5mm Round which as strong as the 7.52x56mm round
@TheMexican1821 I dont think so, maybe some small army uses it, but the AR-10 has been changed to the AR-15 in the Vietnam war, in favor of the new small ammunition.
To think that if the US government was sensible, the military would have adopted this instead of the M14. Since the AR-10 was already designed around the 7.62 NATO, the jams that were experienced in Vietnam with the M16 would not have happened (since most of the failures were ammunition-related) though there would be some teething issues with mass production. This would actually mean that the .223 would never exist to become the 5.56, though I do predict that NATO would switch to a 6 mm cartridge by the 70s and 80s (FN intended the FAL to use a .270 or so caliber cartridge; Britain also had an experimental cartridge in a similar caliber that was used in the EM-2).
Modern audiences should know that the standards of a "sniping rifle" back in the 50s were as strict as it is today. During World War 2, the average accuracy of a combat rifle is around 4 MOA or so, while sniper rifles were chosen from tests if the rifles can consistently pattern 2 MOA or tighter. Now, 2 MOA accuracy is pretty much the modern standard for a service rifle nowadays, and most service rifles developed around the time of the AR-10 have begun to have that accuracy. This is why the film keeps saying "the accuracy of a sniping rifle and the firepower of a machine gun."
exact;y. The Garand is the best battle implement ever devised. John Garand was briliant! his life's work was in that rifle and he truly believed in it. but when it comes down to the best rifle for today, Stoner's designs reighn supreme. I believe both garand and Browning would see light in Stoner's vision and agree with his concept of fine tuning the balance of a rifle being light, durable, erganomic, deadly, reliable. as for 30 cal it just boils down to size/weight constraints & logistics
If John Garand and John Browning lived in the late 20th century or early 21st, they would undoubtedly have embraced the changes in manufacturing techniques, advancements in materials, and design evolution in small arms. They'd have nodded with approval at what Stoner and his people did.
Astonished!
SAW variant would be the Stoner 63. Yes, the M14 did see combat. But my point was that very few vets actually would have had access to it. Much like SF as there seem to be millions claiming to be SF or snipers these days.
Chroming prevents rust and reduces friction from debris. All AK's internals and barrels are heavily hard chromed. The M16a1 had it's chrome platings removed for cost reduction. It has been re-added since Vietnam and is on all current M4's.
yep, but in chrome plating's place we got the amazingly useless forward assist.
@@SteveAkaDarktimes Correct. But that was quickly rectified within 2 years of it's official adoption when after action reports complained about the jamming issues. Also, it was the original M16 (XM16) which wasn't chromed while the M16a1 was the chromed version adopted in 1967. The chromed version solved all of the issues and reports following it's adoption were all positive.
That was the standard "walking Fire" technique the Army taught back then.
wow.... how far we changed our weapons... Armalite AR10 to our more later, faithful weapons like the Robinson Armament XCR, FN HErstal SCARs, Bushmaster ACR, HK 416 and way more
And, as I had said in another comment I'd posted, if you don't understand it, in terms of cost trying to arm an entire branch of service with said rifle, I can understand that. But a solution for that which is pretty simple is this: take a couple of sample rifles, find what you like, and dislike about them, and then improve upon them and manufacture your own, licensed rifle. People have been doing that since the '50s-'60s.
Quite an amazing thing back then, and I would say that this is the forefather of almost any modern assault rifle, they all use pretty much the same operation
Did you just wake up from head trauma? That is the whole point to the AR10 you moron.
Pre loaded magazine!
100 rounds!
30 Seconds!
With Sniper rifle range!
9:54
😱
i want this gun with the that belt fed ammo back pack
it will be awesome
I never really appreciated the AR10. It is such a fascinating rifle.
You're referring to the very early models of M14. By the time it was ready for introduction, it was very reliable. In Vietnam, it was just as reliable as the AK-47. The very early models had issues that even included poor thermal treatment for the barrels. But after, it was very reliable. It was always far more reliable than the AR--15/AR-10, that's for sure.
was never the problem. weight and its utterly shit controllability on full auto. it was basically another Garand.
check out the "stoner tapes" here on youtube to see interview of Eugene stoner talking about how the AR plattform came to be.
@AllTheSame711 lol, they are both not reliable, but with AR-15 you can at least fire automatically without huge recoil.
12:25 the combat tummy rub is made more effective by the high accuracy of the AR10
I love my AK, but can't wait to get my ar-10!
@esh325 According to the footage in this video, it sure was.
I heard that the project was ruined when a barrel exploded during military testing.
Either something got in the barrel during stress tests, or one of the reasons it was so light was because of that special metal that fairchild was using for the barrel, it was not conventional steel.
Best .30 cal in my book. Just got one.
we used fn-fal way back then in the south afrcan defense force, rhodesia. reliable as hell but heavy. the benchmark
This rifle beats the crap out of the AR18 aswell.
I dig the ammo belt backpack
No the adopted rifle is AR15 In 5.56 (higher pressured .223 Rem)
AR10 Is .762 Nato or 7.62x51mm (.308)
Oh and so now we know where Professor Dick Macho from Tomorrowgunz gets his "One hit from this and it's alllll over" catchphrase.
1. Nope. The Ordnance Department insisted that the Stellite barrels be replaced, even though Armalite had told them they didn't work. The Army wanted the M14. The AR10 came in so far ahead of it, the OD was determined to sabotage it. When the Air Force bought the AR15 - over the Army OD's strident objections - McNamara (who was just in office then) ordered an investigation of the OD. The result was the closure of Springfield Armory as a government entity, because what happened to the AR10 (cont)
Okay, the belt-to box-magazine changeover is just brilliant. Yes, it's the manufacturer talking up his own product, but there are the sand and mud tests being performed right before our eyes (inasmuch as we can tell). And this thing was not adopted because?
Because hijacking of the military tests and bias to traditional wood stocks. Same reason the FAL wasn’t adopted, even it was DECADES ahead of the m14
Also, the current FAL rifles that you see, are quite ergonomic.
I got to see and shoot various FAL battle rifles to include an H&R T-58 experimental design.
I enjoyed those rifles, as well as the M-14.
@marcab1an the ar 10 came too late during the trials of 1950s.it came in 1956, where as its competitors came in the late 40s, and progress had already been made in their design.the T44E4 beat the ar 10 due to promising specifications, and the ar 10 failed a reliability test. and so the T44E4 was adopted as the m14 in 1957. had the ar 10 been adopted, im sure it would have the technical problems as the early m16 did. and the m16 is almost directly based upon the ar 10. but i still agree with you
I like that charging handle. I wonder why they got rid of it?
Since it's centrally located and moves with the bolt it would also act as a forward assist. Would this not make machining faster and more affordable by getting rid of that damned speedbump of an assist we have now? It would also allow full hard chroming and be ambidextrous.
Why didn't you think of that?
I iwsh they adopted this as a service battle rifle alongside the M1A... it's cost efficient, and more camouflage-friendly. Also, as you said, the AR 15 jams relatively easily even today (it jammed on me), but I still don't understand their total lack of common sense of NOT issuing cleaning kits in 'Nam! Even greats like the AK need to be cleaned from time to time! In fact, the AR 10 promo says that although cleaning is not very tedious, it's still emphasises the need of having it ready!
is this "m16 version for 7,62mm" still in production? It could be very interesting to buy this type of gun
Yes
@TheMexican1821 Special Upper Reciever and bolt. It is just like the M249 then, it can take the standart AR-15 (or in this case AR-10) Mags and ammunition belts.
Never built in large numbers by Fairchild.
Instead thousands were produced by AI Hembrug in the Netherlands.
AI stands for: Artillerie Inrichtingen.
Clearly this video demonstrates the Armalite AR10 is a BAD MOTHER FUCKER. I want the belt feed option.
@wafflecommander15 Because in Vietnam they used the AR-15 platform, not the AR-10 shown here, also, the men using the rifles often did not have the opportunity or training to properly clean and maintain their AR-15's/M-16's, thus, the jamming issue.
The US Military should've adopted the AR-10, it's way better than the M14 in all ways, I read so much about it last night with a friend and she agrees with me about how good the AR-10 is.
The argument for the government was mainly more of deciding between the M16 and AR10. Not keeping the M14.
I love this gun
why the hell didnt we adopt this thing? with the exeption of the m21, this thing has the m14 beat in every way
Can the ar15 be belt fed like in the video, and can you shoot grenades off the end of an ar15 like in the video?
Correction, it wasn't MEANT to take a full power .308. The adjust the gas regulator is all you have to do. And, I said, take some sample rifles, find what you like about them, and improve upon what you dislike about them as much as possible.
@solidfreak123
any gun barrel can melt if it gets too hot, sure the pencil thin government profile barrel didnt help the situation, but the soldiers were mostly to blame because they had a tendency to use full auto and empty all magazines they had on them.
So if it didn't jam then in sand,mud and water, why did it jam in vietnam and other previous wars? Was it the black powder they used?
Agreed.The rotating bolt in the Garand design is Hell on brass but it's hard to kill the rifle.
If .30 caliber wasn't too powerful for the first half of the 20th century,what made it too powerful for the second half?
The assault rifle revolution is what happened. Once a few nations jumped on that bandwagon with both feet, namely Germany and the USSR, it was only a matter of time before others did as well.
It is fortuitous that such weapons were designed, because they fulfill a great many roles within the small arms niche of military forces, but as most armies have learned, they cannot do every job. For some jobs, an intermediate cartridge isn't enough; your troops need a full-power, full-sized center-fire rifle cartridge.
Re: "If .30 caliber wasn't too powerful for the first half of the 20th century,what made it too powerful for the second half?"
I'm an old dude, granted, but still, I have always found it slightly preposterous that modern soldiers, men who are supposed to be the biggest, strongest and fittest soldiers ever fielded, can't or won't field with battle rifles similar to those carried by their fathers or grandfathers, who were not only smaller, but who had survived the depression without enough to eat.
If some guy who weighed 150 lbs. soaking wet could carry not just an M-1 but potentially a BAR without complaint and without issue, what the heck is the problem with modern guys doing it?
From what I hear, see, and read, it is doctrine which has changed. Armies now prefer lighter weapons and larger basic ammo loads, even if that means a less-potent cartridge and a weapon with less punch.
Not that anyone asked but IMO armies need both kinds of cartridges and both kinds of rifles.... why does it have to be one or the other?
They should make a new version of this gun just like the M16's and AK's are making new design. AR-10 looks like a good/accurate rifle to use.
@Itachiskillninja
I hope they pay more attention to the weapons in Vegas, a G-3/Cetme does not fire 5.56.
Stock? Not really. Most stock issue rifles of any type aren't. The difference is that when you try to hyper-accurize the things, the AR platform stays like that while the M14 series takes constant babying. SEI was able to get sub-moa on their M14's. They just couldn't hold it under any sort of conditions outside of a clean firing range. Sage tried to improve the stock and it's passable now. But the Army only still uses it because they're available. The USMC is getting rid of theirs.
1 man army in the begining-"I AM ALL THAT IS MAN! so much so i dont need to look down the site while shooting or need shoes in a firefight!!!"
We should have adopted this.
Oui. I'm sorry, but the only full-american designed rifles that I trust are the armalite ar-15 and ar-10 rifles, and the garand variants(including the m-14 series).
TIL i want an AR-10, but not just any AR10, a belt fed fully automatic AR10
But we got stuck with the M-14.
So this is like M-16 but with beast caliber?
Nah, Howa's Type 64. Very similar in a lot of ways, but takes features from other well proven rifles as well.