Because of the ubiquity of the AR-15 and the fact that so many of us grew up with it we just take it for granted. When you take a moment to put the Stoner AR-10/15 system into context and think about all of the different innovations that are part of that platform you are reminded of how revolutionary it truly was. Ian talking about the barrel extension replacing the receiver as the component providing the lock up of the bolt was the piece of information that did that for me again today. The simplicity of the idea that enables a few ounces of metal to replace a few pounds and provide the same level of functionality is quite simply astounding. Couple this with the fact that so many of “new” guns (G36, FN SCAR, Sig MCX, BRN-180, …) are based on features in his AR-18 system it is a pleasant reminder of how truly brilliant Eugene Stoner really was. Arguably he was the John Browning of our time.
"Arguably he was the John Browning of our time." I tend to think of him as the "John Browning of battle/assault rifles". Browning just invented so doggam many different things that he's in a class of his own, but Stoner's ingenuity with assault rifle type systems (and to an extent light machine guns) is undoubtedly legendary tier.
The idea using a trunnion or barrel extension as the components locking action, allowing for a lighter and cheaper receiver precedes Stoner. Also a lot of the AR-10 is derived from the Johnson LMG, the big innovation was the use of aluminium (though I think early version used a stamped steel receiver) and it's gas system which truly brilliant.
Thank you for doing these “one question” shorts. They are entertaining, informative and interesting. Most importantly, they don’t take an hour plus to watch; time I cannot devote to a TH-cam vid. Again, thank you.
the lack of skits, personal whatever, etc. is one of the things keeping me interested in Ian's content. Yes, I get a laugh out of some of the guntubers, but I sure don't learn much from some of them.
It is notable how many of the answers in "Ask Ian" have their origins in constructive or evolutionary aspects and not just the intended use of the weapon. Excellent video, Greetings from Patagonia Argentina.
Something about one of the license plates on a car they drove through Argentina while filming an episode of their Amazon Top Gear show. The story I read didn't say what it meant and when I saw a pic of the car I didnt get it or I was looking at the wrong license plate but people were seriously pissed over there it must have been pretty bad or disrespectful
Had an SKS. Son in law built me an AR 15 in the 7.62x39 and was amazing the controlability of the round on that platform. Follow up shots were almost instant.
It is pretty crazy how well the AR10 tames 7.62 Nato recoil. Going from bolt action .308 to an AR10 was eye opening. It's like you can tell a lot of violence was happening in the chamber, but the recoil doesn't match up with it.
Yes it was a very smart move to break up the questions. Maybe some of the other questions don't particularly interest me at the moment, but one of them does. The shorter title and shorter runtime make it a much easier choice to watch. Maybe I'll end up watching them all anyway, but it doesn't have to be at once and it isn't inconvenient even if I do.
This was VERY informative, I don't think I had ever seen the sliding upper and lower receivers before. Seeing the original AR-10 bolt with guide on it is a "lost" link with the Johnson LMG. What Stoner did with the gas system is genius but he paid Mevin Johnson royaltys for a reason. He was definitely standing on Johnson's shoulders.
These facts, and design choices, are the reason why i love firearms.....i LOVE the mechanism behind it, the design choices, the ideas, the problem solving within a very small tolerance inside a closed system...each part doing its supposed job, working together...
Makes my head spin. I imagine there's a lot of spillover from clock, watch and lock making . But when you are dealing with an explosion I imagine the trial and error had to be infuriating. There's a fine line between function and blowing up and you have to start all over .
I took collapsible stock off my ar-15 and put on the standard stock. It performed better and the full sized buffer turned it into a consistent ejection pattern at 5 o'clock. It is a tack driver now at 200 yds.
Thanks to 'the buffer thingie' I had to knock out 50 pushups for my drill sergeant when I had him inspect my 'cleaned' M16. He pulled out the buffer spring and held out his soot covered hand while pointing down and saying "That'll cost you 50, private, for lying to a drill sergeant about a cleaned rifle!"
It's a kind of do all solution. It gets that spring behind the bolt which is in itself a lightweight way to do it, it allows the spring tube to be used for a dual role, obviously it takes stress off the receiver and with these things combined you make a very handy rifle which has the benefits of an inline stock and future upgradability. Chuck in an extra buffer and you've got a lovely softened recoil impulse in a compact, adaptable package.
I think your description of the superfluity of the extra recoil reducing features of the AR-10/AR-15 for lower energy calibers probably explains some of why Stoner went in a different direction with the recoil system of the AR-18 (besides the other technical advantages), since it was designed for 5.56/.223 from the start.
Forgotten weapons forgot to mention that the buffer is also used to reduce bolt-bounce. When the bolt slams into the chamber, it tends to want to bounce back from the rebounding inertia. The buffer has sliding wright's because when the bcg comes to a instant hault, just as the bolt wants to bounce back, the buffer weights continue forward to prevent bounce. Them sliding weights aren't in there for no reason. The buffer is more than just an extension to compensate for the shorter bolt carrier.
...direct impingement that isn't really direct impingement cause technically it has a gas piston thingie inside the bolt carrier... Yeah it sure is weird
@@stevbe1723 I was thinking about this too but have an even vaguer understanding so I couldn’t articulate it. Basically the Zooey Deschanel of rifles. Yeah it tries to be different, but at the end of the day it’s just a hot gun and that’s what matters.
One of my favorite hobbies is reminding my friends who are big fans of guns with novel mechanical solutions and really distinct design intent that design wise the AR-15 is actually one of the most distinctive designs out there even to this day, much more so than a lot of guns that look distinctive.
Though not mentioned in this video, the buffer’s primary function in the 556 AR platform weapons is to control unwanted carrier bounce in full automatic fire. Excessive carrier bounce will result in light strike malfunctions. That is why there are steel and tungsten weights floating around in the buffer. To counter act the carrier from bouncing off the barrel extension.
Good video. I owned a S & W MP10 and had to send it back to them 3 times. Finally, I had some one look at it and found that they were putting AR15 buffer and spring and in an AR10. I had to send it to them again and they finally fixed it. I did understand wrong parts causes misfires, but now I totally understand.
Ian, being left handed like yourself. I had some low cost ammo for my DPMS AR15 eject hot cartridges in my face. Thankfully our son was in college 30 minutes from our cottage where my guns were kept. My sons room mate and friends were in the Criminal justice program. On weekends our son and friends stayed at our cottage and went to the gun range for fun. They used up the cheap ammo and the rest of my ammo. Cleaned the guns so they were spotless.
Great presentation especially the images of the older than oldies. The point about the spring not needed to be removed for standard field stripping, keep the spring from unnecessary exposure to contaminates is extremely valid. When I shot a friend’s AR-10 it was actually easier to keep on target than my M-1 Carbine. Years later when shooting a M-1A I had no idea that a 7.62 X 51 kicked so harshly and squeezing off subsequent shots I knew that big rifle was gonna punish my shoulder and that made my aim and hold less steady. WWSD with today’s technology really fill the mind with wonder. The AR platform wasn’t a bad bit of Kit coming from an aircraft company.
@@snek9353 BCG mass is needed for strength and current gas port size, otherwise the buffer would weigh close to a pound. If the standard gas port size could be cut in half to say 35 to 40 thou and still provide the pressure to operate, a lot of stuff could be lightened starting with the BCG.
@@george2113 sadly most ar10s are ported to 70 to 75 thousandth and have no adjustability. Not saying g you couldn't put an adjustable on there, or get one of those multi port keys like my POF. It was cycling hot handloads from the suppressor setting, and bouncing the buffer off the tube on normal with nato ball harshly. Custom gas key port and 5.5 ounce buffer tamed her down perfectly. Remember the brass should be ejected at 3 to 4 o'clock, not 1 o'clock.
@@leftyo9589 as far as I can tell, the internal piston was Stoner's idea. Pretty much everything else was taken from other designs. Although Melvin Johnson actually worked with Stoner at Armalite, so it's not surprising that the AR has so much of Johnson's influence. I just hadn't realized how much 😂
The fact that people say rifles like the SCAR are better than the AR is really depressing. When you compare a carefully engineered marvel meant to do a specific job to a hunk of scrap meant to tick arbitrary boxes, it just makes actual engineers give up. The AR-10 was engineered to be the ideal battle rifle. It is light, it uses every trick in the book for recoil control, and it's simple to use. The SCAR is just an AK with a more consistent piston and a better shell.
The original AR-10 with the sliding rails sure looks very similar to the Johnson LMG and Israeli DROR. The bolt design and lockup into the barrel extension also came from the Johnson design. I think a very strong case can be made that the AR-10 was a direct descendent from the Johnson LMG that converted the original recoil operation to an inline gas pistion (especially since Stoner worked with Melvin Johnson). The ultimate success of the later AR-15 over the garand derived rifles demonstrates that his original action was a superior design. Interesting "what-if" to think about if he had started his design a few years earlier and had as much development time that the M1 garand had.
The whole reason for the buffer is preventing bolt bounce so it can fire in full auto. Otherwise the bolt can be unlocked when the hammer falls and fail to fire
Yeah, I didn't really like that he did that. This video will tend to make some think the buffer now has no purpose. The buffer absolutely has a purpose in the AR-15.
It was to slow the BCG velocity down because of the high cyclic rate which induced malfunctions and parts breakage as a result of switching to ball powder.
Surprised you didn't mention the AR-18/AR-180 when discussing the folding stock. But those early variants of the AR-10 being so lightweight is very surprising.
My guess is that that function is a later development. Starting out with a solid mass and at some point someone uses a deadblow hammer and has an "A ha!" moment. Or even if it was a function added in early development, it was a case of being able to have the buffer do double duty.
I sincerely hope you have a doctorate in gun-ology because your depth and breadth of knowledge is credibly incredible. Just by talking thru the receiver concept, I learn how other guns are designed. Thanks for your generous sharing.
When we did our teardowns of our M16, and later the M4, we would remove the buffers and clean because we found dirt/sand would find it's way back there a lot
The cam pin slot cut, powder being used, barrel port location and size determines lock time, not the buffer..The buffer weights control the carrier velocity and bolt bounce, not lock time..The gas system is charge upwards of 20,000+ PSI, a few ounces in the buffer has negligible effect on lock time..The original buffer (edge-water) was basically a spring guide that prevented the gas key from hitting the lower receiver during recoil..
I don't have an AR but this was very informative. Iv wanted a semi auto AR style platform for quite some time, but I waited so long to decide that that market is flooded with sooooo many parts and makes, I don't even know we're to begin. I would like to build it from the ground up, because I get familiar with things that way, like cars so on. I learn more about how it works and it makes me understand it better.
I shot a HK-91 back in the mid 80's (first time shooting 7.62x51) and almost shot through the roof of my car (benchrest) because I didn't expect the uncontrollability trying to fire it fast in semi-auto. As always, thanks Ian!
So I mainly shoot shotguns for bird hunting and skeet, but I use a semi-auto Browning Silver instead of the traditional side-by-side. It's gas operated and also has a recoil spring that's captive inside the buttstock. It's what I'm most used to so I didn't know how unusual this was for rifles. I bring this up because the Browning has an interesting solution to the fact that the spring in the buttstock isn't in-line with the bolt and barrel. The bolt carrier has a hinged arm on the back that ends with a small ball. That ball sits in a little cup on the front of the recoil spring. This allows the bolt carrier to slide straight back and the hinged arm compresses the spring off at an angle. I'd guess that this solution is good enough for the lower pressures of a shotgun and probably wouldn't translate to a full power rifle cartridge. It is an amazingly gentle gun to shoot.
The HK417/MR762/MR308 has the same diameter through the whole bolt carrier, just as the original AR10 has (so the buffer tube has a larger diameter). The advantage is that the bolt carrier can travel a little bit further back then on a SR25-design with the smaller AR15 buffer tube diameter. The consequence is that with a standard 308 load the buffer never reaches the end of travel, the whole recoil is absorbed softly by the buffer spring. This makes for a very soft 308 shooting experience.
Neat, but IMO superfluous without making other changes as well. A very similar recoil reduction can be gained by reducing the mass of the carrier and good tuning. This also of course creates a lighter weapon overall as well. And contrary to the belief of many increases reliability. A fatal flaw in the HK417 design is not moving the bolt catch back as well. Because their has to be enough energy in the forward movement of the BCG when released from the bolt catch there has to be a compromise. The spring has to be strong enough, but this also means that if the BCG is allowed to travel to far back then the impact of catching the bolt will damage the lower.
The AR rifle's buffer does contact the end of the buffer tube. That is what the plastic insert is for on the end of the buffer. Stoner and Jim Sullivan got the idea for constant recoil from the German STG-44 assault rifle. Sullivan did not invent it..
An addendum (I'm not going to look through ~1100 comments to make sure this has been brought up) that might not be so obvious to people: the buffer, itself, is an easily "tunable" part of the gas system. If you were to make a simple empty tube, capped on both ends, and replace your buffer with that, your gun is going to rip the case heads off of a fair number of cartridges when the gun is firing (this would be bad, and potentially seriously so). Changing gas port size means taking a lot of things apart, and drilling a new hole, if you need more gas, and it means replacing the entire barrel if you need less gas. Changing the mass of the bolt carrier is an option, but that also requires more work to do. By having that buffer, that can be opened and its contents changed, the designer can easily tune how much delay there is between the bullet passing the gas port and the rearward travel of the bolt. From the standpoint of going from a developed prototype to a production gun, it's easy to understand why they'd say, "Okay, we made it work right, now let's sell it," instead of "Okay, we make it work right, now let's change stuff and go through the whole tuning process again."
I always disliked that in Basic they insisted that the buffer and spring have to come out of the rifle to be considered disassembled. It's an unnecessary step, and it's annoying dealing with the buffer detent.
At Ft Knox in late 1990 I found little practically in maintenance teaching aspects. Clearing jams and misfires was a priority though. SPORTS will always be stuck in my head.
Well, the military also teaches unnecessary over-cleaning of the weapons as well. The amount of cleaning that many anal armorers demand before turn-in can actually damage the rifles.
A G36 Bolt Carrier, has Sand (dunno which Kind, could be tungsten) in the upper Part of it, there is a weldet shut section in the Back of it. If you remove all the moving parts and Shake it, you can hear it, Like a very expensive maraca. Thats the HK way of preventing Bolt Carrier bounce, source: i shook the dann Thing, also iam German Army lol
Fantastic explanation! Thank you. Remember that the bolt carrier group and buffer were a single part in the original design. The weight that matters is the combined weight of those 2 parts because that is the reciprocating weight.
The buffer tube & mainspring combination is just a more forgiving system than something like a constant recoil system. In constant recoil, the mainspring, gas system, and ammunition must all be precisely tuned such that the bolt is thrown far enough to eject the spent casing and pick up a new one. It's not very forgiving to variances in ammunition or system cleanliness. A buffer tube & mainspring combo allows for a weaker mainspring while still preventing the impact & muzzle climb associated with the bolt slamming into the rear of the receiver. The weaker spring can allow the bolt to rocket rearward to easily eject the spent casing and engage the next round out of the magazine. At the same time, the buffer tube will slow the impact of the bolt and minimize the impact at the rear of the receiver. This creates a larger functional window for the impulse from the gas system to operate in. The gas port can be larger because the buffer will "eat" the excess energy; which helps in adverse operating conditions.
@@RhodokTribesman I’ve never took the time to observe that notion, thanks , and I’ve assumed so on many of occasions talking about components and or pressure, stress testing ect!
@@jason200912 depends which iteration. The A1 I used had any number of issues but, in all honesty, it was OK. I won’t go through all the problems as you know them all I’m sure, but in the UK and Europe where I used it it was alright; accurate, good to shoot and easy to manoeuvre. Hateful for drill thanks to its weight.
I knew that! Just could not articulate it so well. At least one thing learned during my time in the Navy under the formerly worst president in history, Jimmy Carter. With a suppressed M16A1 on full auto, especially an old heavy suppressor, the vertical recoil and lack of muzzle climb are distinguishable (at least to me, as a disclaimer to the 10K experts about to set me straight). Please continue with the good work.
Finally someone who explains the origin, the evolution and the final design of a firearm design clearly! In engineering, designs often evolve over decades and few can explain what happened!
The M-15 was the heavy barrel, bipod “SAW” version of the M-14. It was not successful and was withdrawn from service. Fairly rare; I never saw one in person.
Ive always had a good understanding about why the AR had a buffer tube but i never knew how Stoner got there. I always was under the assumption that he always a buffer in the stock and the bolt was a separate piece. Great explanation Ian thanks
A LONG time ago I was reading about the early AR-10 with the the big titanium suppressor/compensator on it. The article said it was so effective that whoever was shooting it for a demonstration set a bushel basket on its side at 100 yards and did a mag dump on full auto, easily keeping all 20 or 25 rounds inside the basket. If I recall correctly, the recoil of an M14 rifle would have sent the 2nd or 3rd round over the top edge of the basket, and it would have resembled anti-aircraft fire by the end of 20 rounds. I've known men who were issued M14s but none of them ever said they could hit anything on full-auto.
The Marines already had the M-16A1 when I joined and I had little knowledge of the M-1 or M14. Many years later I obtained a nice M-1 and also ended up with a Czech 8mm mauser. The men that went into battle with the 30-06 and 8mm were clearly tougher than I am, those older weapons kick like a mule and I can't imagine having to fire one a lot in a short period.
I mean, part of the answer is that they *didn't* fire as much. The ammunition weighs almost three times as much per round. So if you think about, say, breaking contact and needing maximum suppression, where the squad is firing off a third of a basic load in a short time... Your basic load is a lot more rounds than theirs. And, of course, because of that heavy recoil, a 5.56 weapon has a much greater ability to get off several shots on a quick target. So "firing a lot in a short period" meant fewer shots back then than it would today. (Still plenty hard on the shoulder, of course!)
@@trioptimum9027 LoL, even with the same number of rounds, the larger rifles make you not want to shoot a lot. I've done target practice with the 8mm because I still love to use open sights, even if I can't see quite as well as I did when younger, even with corrective lenses. And of course I was in excellent physical condition when I was in the Corps. But the 8 mm is brutal. Before the fall of the USSR, 8mm ammo was uncommon but once that happened I stocked up for life, cheap. The military loads still have a pretty good kick, the moose loads with 192 grain bullets just plain hurt. I love the rifle but don't shoot it as much, I now know why my dad had a big rubber butt plate on his favorite 30-06 though. And just for the record, I loved the M-16, lot of people bitched about it but it definitely served the purpose.
The recoil is not bad if you're shooting those rifles like they were back in WWII. They were generally shooting offhand. The way most of us shoot them is in the prone or off of a static table and when you shoot like that the recoil can be punishing after a few shots. I can shoot my Type 53 (Chinese Mosin) off hand all day long. As soon as get into a static position, I'm done after 10 rounds. I also have a K98 Mauser chambered in 7.62 Nato. Its the same way. Nice to shoot when standing or kneeling. Terrible when prone or at a table.
@@oldscratch3535 Point taken, but for the record, I don't know about you, but when using a weapon in battle, offhand is the last position I'm going to be thinking of. For those that don't understand, please see Monty Python's "the art of how not to be seen". 😁
That came later when the military switched to ball powder and needed to slow down the BCG cycling speed and bolt bounce malfunction problem. The original buffer was basically a spring guide..
@@hairydogstail did the AR10 (which greatly predates the AR15, let alone the switch to ball powder) not have any sort of powdered weights in the buffer like became standard on the M16?
The military had a gross abundance of ball powder at the time, so the change was one of supply economics. This change led to the excessive carbon fouling that plagued the original M-16’s until the A1 modifications were made.
@@blackhawk7r221 Fouling was not the main cause of malfunction, it was the increase cyclic rate and poor maintenance training. The fouling came from the excessive calcium carbonate or for lack of a better word-chalk, that was added to the old ball powder recycled from WW2 artillery shells. They have since then required a low amount of calcium carbonate to be allowed in ball powder..The new buffer was designed to slow the increased cyclic rate from ball powder and the added benefit of preventing bolt bounce malfunctions..
IDK about the past but it's certainly a reason for it now. It's also not limited to full auto fire. Carrier bounce is a problem for semi-auto as well, it's just often not as noticed as it's less likely to cause a miss fire.
I would tell the questioner to go to Chris Bartocci and Smallarmssolutions on TH-cam, he has a nearly hour long video explain the Buffer Tube and the history of the AR platform and what tube to use for which setup.
Hello Mr. Ian, I think they should consider an improved gas release/recoil\ system with a small oversized inline gas tube heavy duty header with upward and downward angled ports that go through the receiver to dispell pressure. I think it would reduce heavy caliber semi auto felt recoil pressure across the board by keeping a slight downward pressure for flatter shooting and barrel settling time for repeatedness of discharge. This will practically eliminate nearly all felt recoil for these systems and some military designs which don't currently incorporate this idea. It would revolutionize repeat shot smoothness for all direct impingement heavy recoil designs. That is my suggestion and hope. Who knows, they could probably keep it all basically capped off and away from the shoulder pouncing stock area. That is a great show you have here. Thanks for the hard work you all put into it. Mr. Stoner would have been proud of a major, cheap, helpful development.
The Russian AKM-AK-74 has a 5 piece anti bolt bounce device like the M-16 M-4 needs in it's buffer, "AKA" buffer weights, mistakenly called a rate reducer..The telescoping stock has proven more valuable than a folding stock, kudos to Stoner and the Colt design team..
The buffer design also has a secondary perhaps unintended benefit. As the bolt goes home if the carrier hits any fouling the carrier might slow but the buffer has its own mass which acts like a dead-blow hammer to assist in cycling. This second forward impulse isn’t normally seen but can keep the rifle running smoothly. Stoner recreated the effect in the Stoner 63 with weights in that rifle’s gas tube. The action of two separate weights moving in the same direction is usually smoother than a single large weight so it assists in recoil mitigation that way as well. You can see this effect in action by comparing slow motion film of an AR18 bolt closing to an AR15. The 18 has a single weight and there is a definite impact as it closes, not a huge difference in semi but it can be felt by the shooter.
We were told that disassembly of the return spring in the field would likely result in a non-functional rifle and possibly severe injury when the spring was set free. FAL tips open on a pivot pin, too, a bit like the AR, but a little heavier :D. It was a really good weapon, but a webbing load of ammunition for it probably weighed as much again as the rifle.
@@RodBatten The FAL was originally intended to use the .280 cartridge, but was rechambered for .30/7.62mm after the US insisted on keeping the full size cartridge. It's easy to think that the FAL would've been even better if it was a little lighter and handier.
The 7.62 Nato weapon I've become most impressed with is the Century Arms version of the CETME or the C-308. I've owned an HK-91 in the past and it was brutal to shoot with the standard flash suppressor. It would literally bruise your cheek. Fast forward 30 years and I acquired a C-308 that had a different, Century Arms proprietary muzzle brake and it was just a night and day difference. A C-308 has the felt recoil of a 5.56 Nato AR-15 with No Barrel Climb! Good thing I bought one when they were new and cheap!
People often forget how much of a genius Eugene Stoner is. Most of the "modern" rifle designs heavily inspired by (or straight up copied) Stoner's AR 18 design.
I don't think people realize just how few people really push firearms design forward. Stoner, Browning, Colt, Maxim and a handful of others, roughly one each generation. Also, you ever notice that most of them are Americans?
@@free2chasehappy idk if you're joking or trying to be a smartass. Either way when you dig into the design & function of most modern arms you can compare them to the weapons designed by that handful and see that they're the same guns with rather superficial changes or minor improvements to function, and that when those fail it's the manufacturing or user at fault, not a weakness in the design (the 1911 & AR platform are great examples of this)
@@nicholashodges201 I think there is a misunderstanding... I think the designers you mentioned made a lot of revolutionary designs and I believe they formed the bedrock where most modern gun get their designs from.
@@free2chasehappy It's just hard to tell with the sheer number of asshats the seem to come crawling whenever you mention Americans on social media without dogging us. And since they like to try to be sarcastic...
You'd need a very high stock, and you'd need the barrel to be in line BELOW the stock just as on the M1 the barrel is in line ABOVE the stock, but yeah in theory it could recoil downwards I suppose. That would actually be more useful recoil than recoiling upwards I think. Better to send rounds low towards the lower portions of the target or even ricochet bullets up off the ground than to simply launch rounds up above the target uselessly.
@@normanmccollum6082 problem with that would be making appropriate sights for a contraption where your barrel is below your shoulder and your eyes are still above them
It is not gonna work like that when fired from shoulder - even if the recoil does not try to rotate your arm up on your shoulder, it will still try to rotate your body backward on your hips which will result in the gun climbing up.
the first AR10/AR15 had only a "guide rod" with a "guide rod" spring, but it was found that "bolt bounce" occurred, so to make the operating system more safe of the AR10/15, they developed a weighted buffer, so when the weighted buffer slams the bolt into battery, the bolt stays locked into the lugs and in battery to discharge the next round safely and properly from the spring tension and weighted buffer. This is how I understood it from listening to Small arms solutions and also reading the black rifle book.
This is perfect cuz I’ve been looking for the best buffer for my dream AR build! Thanks for the history! I’ve never looked at the buffer so closely as I have lately, everything from oz to size to spring type, even tube type.
In the old, 1970’s days of AR-15 builds, I ended up with a recoil buffer that was a cheap, soft plastic part, filled with lead shot! It came in a parts kit and I put a proper, milspec one, in place of it. The system is an amazing piece of modern technology though!
Because of the ubiquity of the AR-15 and the fact that so many of us grew up with it we just take it for granted. When you take a moment to put the Stoner AR-10/15 system into context and think about all of the different innovations that are part of that platform you are reminded of how revolutionary it truly was.
Ian talking about the barrel extension replacing the receiver as the component providing the lock up of the bolt was the piece of information that did that for me again today. The simplicity of the idea that enables a few ounces of metal to replace a few pounds and provide the same level of functionality is quite simply astounding.
Couple this with the fact that so many of “new” guns (G36, FN SCAR, Sig MCX, BRN-180, …) are based on features in his AR-18 system it is a pleasant reminder of how truly brilliant Eugene Stoner really was. Arguably he was the John Browning of our time.
Not to mention the craziness that is the Stoner 63. He really was the JMB of our time.
"Arguably he was the John Browning of our time."
I tend to think of him as the "John Browning of battle/assault rifles". Browning just invented so doggam many different things that he's in a class of his own, but Stoner's ingenuity with assault rifle type systems (and to an extent light machine guns) is undoubtedly legendary tier.
Well, the JMB of the latter half of the 20th cemtury 😉
Exactly. Stoner was brilliant. Browning was a genius.
The idea using a trunnion or barrel extension as the components locking action, allowing for a lighter and cheaper receiver precedes Stoner.
Also a lot of the AR-10 is derived from the Johnson LMG, the big innovation was the use of aluminium (though I think early version used a stamped steel receiver) and it's gas system which truly brilliant.
Thank you for doing these “one question” shorts. They are entertaining, informative and interesting. Most importantly, they don’t take an hour plus to watch; time I cannot devote to a TH-cam vid. Again, thank you.
I can binge watch these Forsure
yup. I rarely watched the hour long fireside chats
And they're much easier to find later. Long Q&A videos are interesting to watch, but good luck finding the answer to a specific question years later.
the lack of skits, personal whatever, etc. is one of the things keeping me interested in Ian's content. Yes, I get a laugh out of some of the guntubers, but I sure don't learn much from some of them.
My only complaint is that he hasn't done a long q&a in quite a while.
It is notable how many of the answers in "Ask Ian" have their origins in constructive or evolutionary aspects and not just the intended use of the weapon. Excellent video, Greetings from Patagonia Argentina.
Excellent point there, Brother Carlos.
@@Marin3r101 trust me we have much much much much much more important issues to take care of
@@WTFisTH-camDoinWitUsrNamesHUH The legacy of Jorge Rafael Videla?
@@Marin3r101 mad about what?
Something about one of the license plates on a car they drove through Argentina while filming an episode of their Amazon Top Gear show. The story I read didn't say what it meant and when I saw a pic of the car I didnt get it or I was looking at the wrong license plate but people were seriously pissed over there it must have been pretty bad or disrespectful
People always ask "What would Stoner do?", but they never ask "What was Stoner trying to do?" 😢
That’s because we know what he was trying to do: _perfection_ **chef’s kiss**
Literally the first thing Ian asked.
@@joemcdonald6573 and answered, he was trying to reduce receiver weight/cost/etc
I believe he was trying to "blow up"
@@LabiaLicker He was known to "act like he don't know nobody"
Ian makes the seemingly most boring part of the rifle into an incredibly interesting history lesson. Great job!
Had an SKS. Son in law built me an AR 15 in the 7.62x39 and was amazing the controlability of the round on that platform. Follow up shots were almost instant.
0:37 The prototypes look so much more like ScI-Fi rayguns than the production models. They're great examples of 1950s space age design.
It is pretty crazy how well the AR10 tames 7.62 Nato recoil. Going from bolt action .308 to an AR10 was eye opening. It's like you can tell a lot of violence was happening in the chamber, but the recoil doesn't match up with it.
Even with 5.56/.223 it's noticable when you don't have the buffer
@@jason200912 AR-10 still has way less felt recoil and lower muzzle climb on top of that.
@@jason200912 Word.
i fire lapped a POS DPMS LR308 that was barely holding 5 MOA, and got it down to about .75....
Same with 3" shells in a semi shotgun instead of a pump. The pump bruised me purple and green. The semi could've been mag dumped.
@@hashbrownz1999a great example of that is the Beretta 1301. I’d argue it’s the lightweight AR of semi auto shotguns
I'm really liking the "Ask Ian" series. I don't often have enough time to watch a full Q&A video. But 5-10 minutes is no problem. Thanks! 👍
Yes it was a very smart move to break up the questions. Maybe some of the other questions don't particularly interest me at the moment, but one of them does. The shorter title and shorter runtime make it a much easier choice to watch. Maybe I'll end up watching them all anyway, but it doesn't have to be at once and it isn't inconvenient even if I do.
This was VERY informative, I don't think I had ever seen the sliding upper and lower receivers before. Seeing the original AR-10 bolt with guide on it is a "lost" link with the Johnson LMG. What Stoner did with the gas system is genius but he paid Mevin Johnson royaltys for a reason. He was definitely standing on Johnson's shoulders.
Huh
These facts, and design choices, are the reason why i love firearms.....i LOVE the mechanism behind it, the design choices, the ideas, the problem solving within a very small tolerance inside a closed system...each part doing its supposed job, working together...
Even better when certain parts pull double or triple duty, you just go through it and go "Man, that's so smart"
@@stevbe1723 Exactly!!
Yep. Like the ejector/interruptor on the Mosin-Nagant.
Indeed. Designing some of my own myself. Challenging work, but I’d get the hang of it after my first project (which I’m still working on😂)
Makes my head spin. I imagine there's a lot of spillover from clock, watch and lock making . But when you are dealing with an explosion I imagine the trial and error had to be infuriating. There's a fine line between function and blowing up and you have to start all over .
I took collapsible stock off my ar-15 and put on the standard stock. It performed better and the full sized buffer turned it into a consistent ejection pattern at 5 o'clock. It is a tack driver now at 200 yds.
Thanks to 'the buffer thingie' I had to knock out 50 pushups for my drill sergeant when I had him inspect my 'cleaned' M16. He pulled out the buffer spring and held out his soot covered hand while pointing down and saying "That'll cost you 50, private, for lying to a drill sergeant about a cleaned rifle!"
That AR-10 behind you is beautiful.
It's a kind of do all solution. It gets that spring behind the bolt which is in itself a lightweight way to do it, it allows the spring tube to be used for a dual role, obviously it takes stress off the receiver and with these things combined you make a very handy rifle which has the benefits of an inline stock and future upgradability. Chuck in an extra buffer and you've got a lovely softened recoil impulse in a compact, adaptable package.
The heavier buffer was to slow the cyclic rate down as a result of switching to ball powder..
I think your description of the superfluity of the extra recoil reducing features of the AR-10/AR-15 for lower energy calibers probably explains some of why Stoner went in a different direction with the recoil system of the AR-18 (besides the other technical advantages), since it was designed for 5.56/.223 from the start.
Well that and by then Colt owned the patents, he had to do something different.
Wasn't the 5.56 AR-18 just a downsize of the AR-16, the AR-16 being in 7.62 NATO. Same with the Stoner 63 being downsized from the Stoner 62 series?
@@KrisKringle2 Yup
@@KrisKringle2 You're right! I forgot about that one.
Not true, stoner only had the ar18 set up that way for a foreign market that demanded it. He chose the buffer tube for a reason
Oh, I loved the AR10. I recall in the early days mixing up the buffer of an M16 and a CAR15, to result in a stoppage I couldn’t figure out for ages.
Forgotten weapons forgot to mention that the buffer is also used to reduce bolt-bounce. When the bolt slams into the chamber, it tends to want to bounce back from the rebounding inertia.
The buffer has sliding wright's because when the bcg comes to a instant hault, just as the bolt wants to bounce back, the buffer weights continue forward to prevent bounce.
Them sliding weights aren't in there for no reason. The buffer is more than just an extension to compensate for the shorter bolt carrier.
Buffer tube, buffer thingy, forward assist
The AR15 is kinda weird
...direct impingement that isn't really direct impingement cause technically it has a gas piston thingie inside the bolt carrier...
Yeah it sure is weird
is there a thingy assist buffer though?
@@stevbe1723 I was thinking about this too but have an even vaguer understanding so I couldn’t articulate it.
Basically the Zooey Deschanel of rifles. Yeah it tries to be different, but at the end of the day it’s just a hot gun and that’s what matters.
Agreed!
@@justme_gb It's the gun brake, obviously.
Didn't expect these in-depth dives into simple questions to become the most interesting series on the channel.
One of my favorite hobbies is reminding my friends who are big fans of guns with novel mechanical solutions and really distinct design intent that design wise the AR-15 is actually one of the most distinctive designs out there even to this day, much more so than a lot of guns that look distinctive.
@@shadowopsairman1583 nah more like the f15
@@mshark8246 that's the ar10
Though not mentioned in this video, the buffer’s primary function in the 556 AR platform weapons is to control unwanted carrier bounce in full automatic fire. Excessive carrier bounce will result in light strike malfunctions. That is why there are steel and tungsten weights floating around in the buffer. To counter act the carrier from bouncing off the barrel extension.
Wow i didnt realize there was so many different inventions that really made the AR10 tick. Thank you for the history lesson Ian
Good video. I owned a S & W MP10 and had to send it back to them 3 times. Finally, I had some one look at it and found that they were putting AR15 buffer and spring and in an AR10. I had to send it to them again and they finally fixed it. I did understand wrong parts causes misfires, but now I totally understand.
Ian, being left handed like yourself. I had some low cost ammo for my DPMS AR15 eject hot cartridges in my face. Thankfully our son was in college 30 minutes from our cottage where my guns were kept. My sons room mate and friends were in the Criminal justice program. On weekends our son and friends stayed at our cottage and went to the gun range for fun. They used up the cheap ammo and the rest of my ammo. Cleaned the guns so they were spotless.
Great presentation especially the images of the older than oldies. The point about the spring not needed to be removed for standard field stripping, keep the spring from unnecessary exposure to contaminates is extremely valid. When I shot a friend’s AR-10 it was actually easier to keep on target than my M-1 Carbine. Years later when shooting a M-1A I had no idea that a 7.62 X 51 kicked so harshly and squeezing off subsequent shots I knew that big rifle was gonna punish my shoulder and that made my aim and hold less steady. WWSD with today’s technology really fill the mind with wonder. The AR platform wasn’t a bad bit of Kit coming from an aircraft company.
If you have never shot an AR 10,you are in for quite the surprise. Very smooth and controlled, with hardly any recoil.
Agree, when it's properly gassed and/or properly buffer weighted. Big medicine typewriter. Unfortunately most ar10's are overgassed.
@@PBVader And have too much carrier mass.
@@PBVader isn't there a adjustable gas port, my FAL is adjustable as hell .
@@snek9353 BCG mass is needed for strength and current gas port size, otherwise the buffer would weigh close to a pound. If the standard gas port size could be cut in half to say 35 to 40 thou and still provide the pressure to operate, a lot of stuff could be lightened starting with the BCG.
@@george2113 sadly most ar10s are ported to 70 to 75 thousandth and have no adjustability. Not saying g you couldn't put an adjustable on there, or get one of those multi port keys like my POF. It was cycling hot handloads from the suppressor setting, and bouncing the buffer off the tube on normal with nato ball harshly. Custom gas key port and 5.5 ounce buffer tamed her down perfectly. Remember the brass should be ejected at 3 to 4 o'clock, not 1 o'clock.
Wow, I hadn't realized how much Johnson influenced the early AR10. That first pattern bcg is taken straight from a Johnson LMG
most of stoners ideas were not original. he did a good job of taking proven designs and making them work in his rifles.
@@leftyo9589 as far as I can tell, the internal piston was Stoner's idea. Pretty much everything else was taken from other designs. Although Melvin Johnson actually worked with Stoner at Armalite, so it's not surprising that the AR has so much of Johnson's influence. I just hadn't realized how much 😂
Well, that brings to mind the fact that a WWSD in .308 would be an interesting project.
It might be more interesting if it uses army's new 6.8 ammo
Let's wait for the GWACS fiasco to wind down but yes I would also like to see this :P
@@AndersonKeim if we don't support KE arms there probably won't be a WWSD AR-10
@@chrisblack6258 are you referring to the 277 fury?
@@george2113 277 Fury is what Sig Sauer calls it. To the US Army, it is known as 6.8x51mm.
The fact that people say rifles like the SCAR are better than the AR is really depressing.
When you compare a carefully engineered marvel meant to do a specific job to a hunk of scrap meant to tick arbitrary boxes, it just makes actual engineers give up.
The AR-10 was engineered to be the ideal battle rifle. It is light, it uses every trick in the book for recoil control, and it's simple to use.
The SCAR is just an AK with a more consistent piston and a better shell.
Was wondering this for a while. This is a great video series, cheers! 👍
Time to make a video about it then?
Removing the buffer tube
Recoil cracks mountain ranges, drives planet out of orbit
Time for a massive buffer weight
These "Ask Ian" videos are my favorite thing you've ever done.
The original AR-10 with the sliding rails sure looks very similar to the Johnson LMG and Israeli DROR. The bolt design and lockup into the barrel extension also came from the Johnson design. I think a very strong case can be made that the AR-10 was a direct descendent from the Johnson LMG that converted the original recoil operation to an inline gas pistion (especially since Stoner worked with Melvin Johnson). The ultimate success of the later AR-15 over the garand derived rifles demonstrates that his original action was a superior design. Interesting "what-if" to think about if he had started his design a few years earlier and had as much development time that the M1 garand had.
I wonder what an M14 with a folding straight line stock and actual sliding recoil absorbing section Ala FG-42 would do for full-auto controllability.
Great answer to a reasonable question. Thanks, Ian. We need you, and more like you.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the weights inside the buffer floating dirt the purpose of preventing bolt bounce in full auto
The whole reason for the buffer is preventing bolt bounce so it can fire in full auto. Otherwise the bolt can be unlocked when the hammer falls and fail to fire
Chris Bartocci goes at length into that in one of his videos. Bear in mind that Chris worked for Colt while Ian has not.
@@eloiseharbeson2483 I'm am 💯 that Ian knows that fact but wanted to give lesser known facts and just forgot to throw that nugget in.
Yeah, I didn't really like that he did that. This video will tend to make some think the buffer now has no purpose. The buffer absolutely has a purpose in the AR-15.
It was to slow the BCG velocity down because of the high cyclic rate which induced malfunctions and parts breakage as a result of switching to ball powder.
As a new-ish gun owner I love these Q&A vids. 30% of the info may go over my head but I’m always way better informed after.
Surprised you didn't mention the AR-18/AR-180 when discussing the folding stock. But those early variants of the AR-10 being so lightweight is very surprising.
My guess is that that function is a later development. Starting out with a solid mass and at some point someone uses a deadblow hammer and has an "A ha!" moment. Or even if it was a function added in early development, it was a case of being able to have the buffer do double duty.
Lets hope Ian could get his hands on AR16 in 7.62x51 the progenitor of AR18/180 and their derivatives.
@@DreadNought0255 AR-15 originally had the Edgewater spring guide with multiple dead blow effect conical buffers like a Browning A5 shotgun.
I you, am enjoying the one question format Ian. It allows you to go into much deeper detail, development and history.
I love these detailed explanations on mechanics and history, these Ask Ian videos are great.
I sincerely hope you have a doctorate in gun-ology because your depth and breadth of knowledge is credibly incredible. Just by talking thru the receiver concept, I learn how other guns are designed. Thanks for your generous sharing.
Ian is a beast. He literally is a archival attribute to the community
Yea I got auto corrected like a mo fo.
That is the first time I've seen that picture at 4:50, interesting to see this development growth of the platform
When we did our teardowns of our M16, and later the M4, we would remove the buffers and clean because we found dirt/sand would find it's way back there a lot
The cam pin slot cut, powder being used, barrel port location and size determines lock time, not the buffer..The buffer weights control the carrier velocity and bolt bounce, not lock time..The gas system is charge upwards of 20,000+ PSI, a few ounces in the buffer has negligible effect on lock time..The original buffer (edge-water) was basically a spring guide that prevented the gas key from hitting the lower receiver during recoil..
th-cam.com/video/OMXd8nzE5LQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Al269EZbFc61tHp1&t=766
Excellent explanation, well presented. I suppose one could delve further into the buffer's design and weight as it relates to the gas system.
I don't have an AR but this was very informative. Iv wanted a semi auto AR style platform for quite some time, but I waited so long to decide that that market is flooded with sooooo many parts and makes, I don't even know we're to begin. I would like to build it from the ground up, because I get familiar with things that way, like cars so on. I learn more about how it works and it makes me understand it better.
I shot a HK-91 back in the mid 80's (first time shooting 7.62x51) and almost shot through the roof of my car (benchrest) because I didn't expect the uncontrollability trying to fire it fast in semi-auto. As always, thanks Ian!
So I mainly shoot shotguns for bird hunting and skeet, but I use a semi-auto Browning Silver instead of the traditional side-by-side. It's gas operated and also has a recoil spring that's captive inside the buttstock. It's what I'm most used to so I didn't know how unusual this was for rifles. I bring this up because the Browning has an interesting solution to the fact that the spring in the buttstock isn't in-line with the bolt and barrel. The bolt carrier has a hinged arm on the back that ends with a small ball. That ball sits in a little cup on the front of the recoil spring. This allows the bolt carrier to slide straight back and the hinged arm compresses the spring off at an angle. I'd guess that this solution is good enough for the lower pressures of a shotgun and probably wouldn't translate to a full power rifle cartridge. It is an amazingly gentle gun to shoot.
The FN FAL 308 battle rifle uses a slanted buffer spring in it's stock and works very well..Shot guns have much more recoil than the AR-15 in 5.56
The HK417/MR762/MR308 has the same diameter through the whole bolt carrier, just as the original AR10 has (so the buffer tube has a larger diameter). The advantage is that the bolt carrier can travel a little bit further back then on a SR25-design with the smaller AR15 buffer tube diameter. The consequence is that with a standard 308 load the buffer never reaches the end of travel, the whole recoil is absorbed softly by the buffer spring. This makes for a very soft 308 shooting experience.
Neat, but IMO superfluous without making other changes as well. A very similar recoil reduction can be gained by reducing the mass of the carrier and good tuning. This also of course creates a lighter weapon overall as well. And contrary to the belief of many increases reliability.
A fatal flaw in the HK417 design is not moving the bolt catch back as well. Because their has to be enough energy in the forward movement of the BCG when released from the bolt catch there has to be a compromise. The spring has to be strong enough, but this also means that if the BCG is allowed to travel to far back then the impact of catching the bolt will damage the lower.
The AR rifle's buffer does contact the end of the buffer tube. That is what the plastic insert is for on the end of the buffer. Stoner and Jim Sullivan got the idea for constant recoil from the German STG-44 assault rifle. Sullivan did not invent it..
An addendum (I'm not going to look through ~1100 comments to make sure this has been brought up) that might not be so obvious to people: the buffer, itself, is an easily "tunable" part of the gas system. If you were to make a simple empty tube, capped on both ends, and replace your buffer with that, your gun is going to rip the case heads off of a fair number of cartridges when the gun is firing (this would be bad, and potentially seriously so). Changing gas port size means taking a lot of things apart, and drilling a new hole, if you need more gas, and it means replacing the entire barrel if you need less gas. Changing the mass of the bolt carrier is an option, but that also requires more work to do. By having that buffer, that can be opened and its contents changed, the designer can easily tune how much delay there is between the bullet passing the gas port and the rearward travel of the bolt.
From the standpoint of going from a developed prototype to a production gun, it's easy to understand why they'd say, "Okay, we made it work right, now let's sell it," instead of "Okay, we make it work right, now let's change stuff and go through the whole tuning process again."
I always disliked that in Basic they insisted that the buffer and spring have to come out of the rifle to be considered disassembled. It's an unnecessary step, and it's annoying dealing with the buffer detent.
Not that hard to remove..
At Ft Knox in late 1990 I found little practically in maintenance teaching aspects. Clearing jams and misfires was a priority though. SPORTS will always be stuck in my head.
Well, the military also teaches unnecessary over-cleaning of the weapons as well. The amount of cleaning that many anal armorers demand before turn-in can actually damage the rifles.
@@armynurseboy Yup!
@@hairydogstail😮
I am so relieved, Ian. I've always referred to that thingie that's next to that other thingie that's on top of that widget.
A G36 Bolt Carrier, has Sand (dunno which Kind, could be tungsten) in the upper Part of it, there is a weldet shut section in the Back of it. If you remove all the moving parts and Shake it, you can hear it, Like a very expensive maraca. Thats the HK way of preventing Bolt Carrier bounce, source: i shook the dann Thing, also iam German Army lol
Its tungsten shot.
Fantastic explanation! Thank you.
Remember that the bolt carrier group and buffer were a single part in the original design. The weight that matters is the combined weight of those 2 parts because that is the reciprocating weight.
Once again, a great history lesson. Well done and thanks!
The buffer tube & mainspring combination is just a more forgiving system than something like a constant recoil system. In constant recoil, the mainspring, gas system, and ammunition must all be precisely tuned such that the bolt is thrown far enough to eject the spent casing and pick up a new one. It's not very forgiving to variances in ammunition or system cleanliness.
A buffer tube & mainspring combo allows for a weaker mainspring while still preventing the impact & muzzle climb associated with the bolt slamming into the rear of the receiver. The weaker spring can allow the bolt to rocket rearward to easily eject the spent casing and engage the next round out of the magazine. At the same time, the buffer tube will slow the impact of the bolt and minimize the impact at the rear of the receiver. This creates a larger functional window for the impulse from the gas system to operate in. The gas port can be larger because the buffer will "eat" the excess energy; which helps in adverse operating conditions.
As an engineer I respect you using proper terms as in moment of action ! 👍great job sir
He has a degree in mechanical engineering
@@RhodokTribesman I’ve never took the time to observe that notion, thanks , and I’ve assumed so on many of occasions talking about components and or pressure, stress testing ect!
This was really well explaned. You learn something new every day...
Thanks Ian
Amazing to think the SA-80 (L85 A3) is 1.5lb HEAVIER than the M1.
Is that true? Because I believe its closer to the opposite way round.
@@wiseguyashnee8532 According to Wikipedia, the SA80 is in fact slightly heavier than the Garand.
@@wiseguyashnee8532 Google is your friend. And mine in this instance.
@@jason200912 depends which iteration. The A1 I used had any number of issues but, in all honesty, it was OK. I won’t go through all the problems as you know them all I’m sure, but in the UK and Europe where I used it it was alright; accurate, good to shoot and easy to manoeuvre. Hateful for drill thanks to its weight.
I knew that! Just could not articulate it so well. At least one thing learned during my time in the Navy under the formerly worst president in history, Jimmy Carter.
With a suppressed M16A1 on full auto, especially an old heavy suppressor, the vertical recoil and lack of muzzle climb are distinguishable (at least to me, as a disclaimer to the 10K experts about to set me straight). Please continue with the good work.
I really like your show maybe I suggestion for content early firearms that would fall under the NFA today
Finally someone who explains the origin, the evolution and the final design of a firearm design clearly!
In engineering, designs often evolve over decades and few can explain what happened!
Come to think of it, what on earth was the M15? Some kind of experimental rifle or did the US just jump from M14 to M16?
It’s a weird attempt at a light support version of the M14, iirc.
I believe the M15 was an experimental LMG variant of the M14 with a heavy barrel and a bipod
The M-15 was the heavy barrel, bipod “SAW” version of the M-14. It was not successful and was withdrawn from service. Fairly rare; I never saw one in person.
Ian has a video on a semi auto one that was for sale at one of the auctions several years ago. Search for semi auto M14-E2
M14 with heavy barrel and bipod
Ive always had a good understanding about why the AR had a buffer tube but i never knew how Stoner got there. I always was under the assumption that he always a buffer in the stock and the bolt was a separate piece. Great explanation Ian thanks
The buffer is always in the stock and the bolt and carrier are separate pieces..
This is propaganda paid for by Big Buffer 😤
A LONG time ago I was reading about the early AR-10 with the the big titanium suppressor/compensator on it. The article said it was so effective that whoever was shooting it for a demonstration set a bushel basket on its side at 100 yards and did a mag dump on full auto, easily keeping all 20 or 25 rounds inside the basket. If I recall correctly, the recoil of an M14 rifle would have sent the 2nd or 3rd round over the top edge of the basket, and it would have resembled anti-aircraft fire by the end of 20 rounds. I've known men who were issued M14s but none of them ever said they could hit anything on full-auto.
The Marines already had the M-16A1 when I joined and I had little knowledge of the M-1 or M14. Many years later I obtained a nice M-1 and also ended up with a Czech 8mm mauser. The men that went into battle with the 30-06 and 8mm were clearly tougher than I am, those older weapons kick like a mule and I can't imagine having to fire one a lot in a short period.
I mean, part of the answer is that they *didn't* fire as much. The ammunition weighs almost three times as much per round. So if you think about, say, breaking contact and needing maximum suppression, where the squad is firing off a third of a basic load in a short time... Your basic load is a lot more rounds than theirs. And, of course, because of that heavy recoil, a 5.56 weapon has a much greater ability to get off several shots on a quick target. So "firing a lot in a short period" meant fewer shots back then than it would today. (Still plenty hard on the shoulder, of course!)
@@trioptimum9027 LoL, even with the same number of rounds, the larger rifles make you not want to shoot a lot. I've done target practice with the 8mm because I still love to use open sights, even if I can't see quite as well as I did when younger, even with corrective lenses. And of course I was in excellent physical condition when I was in the Corps. But the 8 mm is brutal. Before the fall of the USSR, 8mm ammo was uncommon but once that happened I stocked up for life, cheap. The military loads still have a pretty good kick, the moose loads with 192 grain bullets just plain hurt. I love the rifle but don't shoot it as much, I now know why my dad had a big rubber butt plate on his favorite 30-06 though.
And just for the record, I loved the M-16, lot of people bitched about it but it definitely served the purpose.
The recoil is not bad if you're shooting those rifles like they were back in WWII. They were generally shooting offhand. The way most of us shoot them is in the prone or off of a static table and when you shoot like that the recoil can be punishing after a few shots. I can shoot my Type 53 (Chinese Mosin) off hand all day long. As soon as get into a static position, I'm done after 10 rounds.
I also have a K98 Mauser chambered in 7.62 Nato. Its the same way. Nice to shoot when standing or kneeling. Terrible when prone or at a table.
@@oldscratch3535 Point taken, but for the record, I don't know about you, but when using a weapon in battle, offhand is the last position I'm going to be thinking of. For those that don't understand, please see Monty Python's "the art of how not to be seen". 😁
Thank you, thank you, thank you for explaining that about the beloved AR15 buffer tube. I love my AR15. It’s a great design.
I had thought that one of the major reasons for the buffer assembly was to reduce bolt bounce on full auto fire
That came later when the military switched to ball powder and needed to slow down the BCG cycling speed and bolt bounce malfunction problem. The original buffer was basically a spring guide..
@@hairydogstail did the AR10 (which greatly predates the AR15, let alone the switch to ball powder) not have any sort of powdered weights in the buffer like became standard on the M16?
The military had a gross abundance of ball powder at the time, so the change was one of supply economics.
This change led to the excessive carbon fouling that plagued the original M-16’s until the A1 modifications were made.
@@blackhawk7r221 Fouling was not the main cause of malfunction, it was the increase cyclic rate and poor maintenance training. The fouling came from the excessive calcium carbonate or for lack of a better word-chalk, that was added to the old ball powder recycled from WW2 artillery shells. They have since then required a low amount of calcium carbonate to be allowed in ball powder..The new buffer was designed to slow the increased cyclic rate from ball powder and the added benefit of preventing bolt bounce malfunctions..
IDK about the past but it's certainly a reason for it now. It's also not limited to full auto fire. Carrier bounce is a problem for semi-auto as well, it's just often not as noticed as it's less likely to cause a miss fire.
In addition the original AR-10 had a mechanism that would allow for belt fed operations over the other rifles in the trials...
I would tell the questioner to go to Chris Bartocci and Smallarmssolutions on TH-cam, he has a nearly hour long video explain the Buffer Tube and the history of the AR platform and what tube to use for which setup.
Chris and Ian are my favorite firearm experts and historians on YT.
I really the "Ask Ian" format and hope it becomes more frequent on your channel.
all i am hearing is that i need a AR-10
And a shift button.
I love the physics, chemistry, and geometry of gun designs. They're essential high pressure rube Goldberg machines and I love it.
Could you explain how the SCAR 17 mitigates recoil with its design? It would an interesting comparison to make since both chambers the 7.62
@@Bob_Lennart I mean, without the spring the bolt carrier is going to slam into the back of the receiver at extremely high speed...
Hello Mr. Ian, I think they should consider an improved gas release/recoil\ system with a small oversized inline gas tube heavy duty header with upward and downward angled ports that go through the receiver to dispell pressure. I think it would reduce heavy caliber semi auto felt recoil pressure across the board by keeping a slight downward pressure for flatter shooting and barrel settling time for repeatedness of discharge. This will practically eliminate nearly all felt recoil for these systems and some military designs which don't currently incorporate this idea. It would revolutionize repeat shot smoothness for all direct impingement heavy recoil designs. That is my suggestion and hope. Who knows, they could probably keep it all basically capped off and away from the shoulder pouncing stock area. That is a great show you have here. Thanks for the hard work you all put into it. Mr. Stoner would have been proud of a major, cheap, helpful development.
The Russian AKM-AK-74 has a 5 piece anti bolt bounce device like the M-16 M-4 needs in it's buffer, "AKA" buffer weights, mistakenly called a rate reducer..The telescoping stock has proven more valuable than a folding stock, kudos to Stoner and the Colt design team..
The buffer design also has a secondary perhaps unintended benefit. As the bolt goes home if the carrier hits any fouling the carrier might slow but the buffer has its own mass which acts like a dead-blow hammer to assist in cycling. This second forward impulse isn’t normally seen but can keep the rifle running smoothly. Stoner recreated the effect in the Stoner 63 with weights in that rifle’s gas tube.
The action of two separate weights moving in the same direction is usually smoother than a single large weight so it assists in recoil mitigation that way as well. You can see this effect in action by comparing slow motion film of an AR18 bolt closing to an AR15. The 18 has a single weight and there is a definite impact as it closes, not a huge difference in semi but it can be felt by the shooter.
Because it works better than the shoulder thing that goes up.
I'm legit grateful that i have these neat little videos to watch on my lunch break. Thanks Ian.
Recoil spring doesn't come out of the FN FAL either. Stays in the buttstock.
We were told that disassembly of the return spring in the field would likely result in a non-functional rifle and possibly severe injury when the spring was set free.
FAL tips open on a pivot pin, too, a bit like the AR, but a little heavier :D. It was a really good weapon, but a webbing load of ammunition for it probably weighed as much again as the rifle.
@@RodBatten The FAL was originally intended to use the .280 cartridge, but was rechambered for .30/7.62mm after the US insisted on keeping the full size cartridge. It's easy to think that the FAL would've been even better if it was a little lighter and handier.
@@ErwinPommel The AR -15 was originally chambered in the 222 Remington..
The 7.62 Nato weapon I've become most impressed with is the Century Arms version of the CETME or the C-308. I've owned an HK-91 in the past and it was brutal to shoot with the standard flash suppressor. It would literally bruise your cheek. Fast forward 30 years and I acquired a C-308 that had a different, Century Arms proprietary muzzle brake and it was just a night and day difference. A C-308 has the felt recoil of a 5.56 Nato AR-15 with No Barrel Climb! Good thing I bought one when they were new and cheap!
People often forget how much of a genius Eugene Stoner is.
Most of the "modern" rifle designs heavily inspired by (or straight up copied) Stoner's AR 18 design.
I don't think people realize just how few people really push firearms design forward. Stoner, Browning, Colt, Maxim and a handful of others, roughly one each generation.
Also, you ever notice that most of them are Americans?
@@nicholashodges201 yeap, they are just amazing at pushing forward new designs! Revolutionary designs!
Oh yeah! No surprise there! haha
@@free2chasehappy idk if you're joking or trying to be a smartass. Either way when you dig into the design & function of most modern arms you can compare them to the weapons designed by that handful and see that they're the same guns with rather superficial changes or minor improvements to function, and that when those fail it's the manufacturing or user at fault, not a weakness in the design (the 1911 & AR platform are great examples of this)
@@nicholashodges201 I think there is a misunderstanding... I think the designers you mentioned made a lot of revolutionary designs and I believe they formed the bedrock where most modern gun get their designs from.
@@free2chasehappy It's just hard to tell with the sheer number of asshats the seem to come crawling whenever you mention Americans on social media without dogging us. And since they like to try to be sarcastic...
So great to have this explained with clear/casual english in a short video.
We're spoiled yall.
So... If your buttstock is lined above the barrel, will it recoil downwards?
You'd need a very high stock, and you'd need the barrel to be in line BELOW the stock just as on the M1 the barrel is in line ABOVE the stock, but yeah in theory it could recoil downwards I suppose. That would actually be more useful recoil than recoiling upwards I think. Better to send rounds low towards the lower portions of the target or even ricochet bullets up off the ground than to simply launch rounds up above the target uselessly.
@@normanmccollum6082 problem with that would be making appropriate sights for a contraption where your barrel is below your shoulder and your eyes are still above them
@@belthesheep3550 Not really. That's already the case with a straight line stock. Whatever riser would just be a little taller.
Turn your M-1 rifle upside down and try it.
It is not gonna work like that when fired from shoulder - even if the recoil does not try to rotate your arm up on your shoulder, it will still try to rotate your body backward on your hips which will result in the gun climbing up.
Ian, even when i think I already know the answer to your FAQ-type videos, i still manage to learn something. Thank you for your vast insight.
damn 52 sec after post w 2 views
What a very thorough explanation! I love the history, and I love you engineering trade-studies.
But so many of today's "New Rifles" use one of Stoner's designs from AR-10, AR-15 or AR-18. Just go to show how right the man back in the early days.
the first AR10/AR15 had only a "guide rod" with a "guide rod" spring, but it was found that "bolt bounce" occurred, so to make the operating system more safe of the AR10/15, they developed a weighted buffer, so when the weighted buffer slams the bolt into battery, the bolt stays locked into the lugs and in battery to discharge the next round safely and properly from the spring tension and weighted buffer. This is how I understood it from listening to Small arms solutions and also reading the black rifle book.
I like AR-15 look, how thin it is, but i absolutely hate that it don't have folding stock. That's why i like LR300! =)
Always a pleasure to listen to Ian... such a wealth of knowledge.
Early gang
Me too
I'd had loved to hear you call it a "buffer thingy" to my Drill Instructor!!
This is perfect cuz I’ve been looking for the best buffer for my dream AR build! Thanks for the history! I’ve never looked at the buffer so closely as I have lately, everything from oz to size to spring type, even tube type.
JP-SCS
In the old, 1970’s days of AR-15 builds, I ended up with a recoil buffer that was a cheap, soft plastic part, filled with lead shot! It came in a parts kit and I put a proper, milspec one, in place of it. The system is an amazing piece of modern technology though!
Absolutely fantastic article and clear explaination....that was then, this is now
Outstanding explanation of Stoners design and development. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise.
Brilliant video. Always fun to learn on these Ask Ian shorts.
One of the best gun channels on the Internet. Thank you.