I was surprised how easy it was to get around patents when I was doing my capstone project in college. The sa80 was such a close copy functionally but was still unreliable due to the engineering team not being firearms/machining savvy? Thanks for the cool video!
Thanks for your kind words! It really depends on the patent - some of them can be very difficult to get around indeed, whereas others (like those in the video) are trivial. Depends hugely on the prior art and the skill of the drafter, both of which are issues here!!!
I saw a challenge to a Provisional Patent for a solvent-proof dressing from 3M. They described how they produced an alleged solvent-proof dressing on an ironing table. If they were already selling that and ìt worked there would have been no call to make a dressing which did work but they had the market. It wasn't going to change.
According to Jim Sullivan, it's completely on the design and production team at Royal Ordnance. Here's a snippet of the interview I still have saved: "I went over to Royal Ordnance, Nottingham; just short-term stuff. Looked at the British SA-80 program. It was at the time they were shutting down RSAF and Enfield. They had already switched all the manufacturing to Nottingham. There wasn't all that much to my involvement. They asked me to go over there and take a look at it, I did and I told them my views on the gun, and they got angry and that was the end of it. From what I saw, everything about it was wrong. For instance, they were using an M16 type bolt and not making it right. In manufacturing it, first you drill a hole for the firing pin. Once that hole is there, everything centers on that hole. You turn the outside, you cut the slots and everything else. They didn't do that. They cut all the outside first, then tried to drill the hole for the firing pin in the center. It wasn't "true." Then they found out you can't drill a hole that way, holes go off this way and that way and aren't centered. To solve that, what they did was mess with the firing pin tip. The firing pin has a nice, respectable diameter for most of its length until the front. Instead of a tapered firing pin so that it's good and strong, they just narrowed it down, and they had the thing about a half-inch long, and just a sixteenth inch in diameter. Another thing was the magazine well. It's a sheet metal receiver, and the magazine well is sheet metal, but it has to be welded on. That's fine. But the sheet metal stamping for the magazine well, they stamp the slot, the little hole, the slot for the magazine latch, they stamped it in there, and then they weld it on. I mean, sure, you save an operation because you can stamp the hole instead of machining it, but no two latch positions on any guns are precisely the same. Their magazines on some of the guns were jammed up and the bolt couldn't move 'cause the magazines were stuck in there on some guns. On other guns it was too low, wasn't feeding properly. They didn't fix this stuff, it just went on and on like that. They'd hold plus or minus one-thousandth, completely unrealistic tolerances, which nobody could make the parts to. The firing on that trip when I went over there was still done at the only range they had, which was still at RSAF Enfield. One of the things you do to test is you load up a mag, put it up in the rifle, you fire a shot and let the thing cycle and chamber the next round, and then instead of firing that next round, you hand extract it and look for scratches on it. When I did this test, it was just scratched all to hell. They weren't up on that. The back end of the lugs, you've got to carefully smooth off that corner. These were just raw. It was just cutting the cartridges. I don't know why they weren't getting split cases from that. Maybe they were."
Hey there! I just discovered your channel, I happened upon it as I am a new collector of Armalite Rifles. I purchased 2 M4 Variant m-15 Armalite Carbines this year and they are amazing. They were used by the US Dept. of Energy. What a find! Great show here Cheers
Somewhere there's a photo of an AR16 or AR18 bolt carrier that's set up for Stoner-gas. I think the caption said it was on a pre-prototype gun before they realized they'd prevented themselves from using that gas system.
@@johnharker7194 You need to find a guy known as Doc a DMC Delorean, some radioactive material and something called a flux capacitor. Set the panel on the dashboard for the 9:00 am 1st of January 1986. 😂
@@Joshua_N-A it looks promising. first the wobbly crumbling handguard is made better. second, the selector switch isnt a fully rotating thing (you should see how they train with it) and is quicker to manipulate. also compounding on point #2, the elimination of the burst fire mechanism would save weight. adjustable stock and ambidextrous controls are more inclusive to the female soldiers and lefties
Speaking as a librarian, if I had to find something in a patent I'd totally want the pictures at the front (assuming we're in an era where this is all on paper) because then I could easily set those pages to one side and follow along while I read the text, instead of having to flip back and forth. Though that's assuming they're in a binder or just loose in a manila folder; if they were stapled then having the pictures at the back would be easier to remove them from the staple.
I have a Sterling AR-180 the only serious problem is the garbage magazine latch system. I was lucky a family friend jiggered a dozen 20 round M16 magazine and I found a few IMI plastic 30 rounders. Super accurate with the original Colt scope.
I don't normally get bored by these videos, that being said I still watched and enjoyed it. I'm not sure why I got sleepy watching this one but it could be that I didn't get much sleep last night, lol. Interesting information concerning how patents differ between countries and how important it is to have the important items being patented properly explained.
It is a terrifying thought that among the heroes of firearms development, we may need to recognize the lawyers who actually managed to secure patent protection for their companies more effectively than their competitors. A huge fraction of the firearms designed since the 19th century can be traced to efforts to dodge or exploit patents at the expense of the original holders. Some truly bad ideas have been promoted for this reason, but some great ones have come about because of it as well. Truly a fascinating history that one could disappear into if not wary!
Even Sweden and Finland have jumped on the AR-18 party-train, both had AKish rifles (FNC and RK62), now they are jointly developing a very generic AR-18 derivative 😅
@@RaDeus87 AR18 uses a pair of bolt carrier guide rails with concentric springs around each rail, and doesn't have the AR15's semi direct gas impingement bolt.
Ian from forgotten weapons did a video on when ArmaLight tried to sue and made a bullpup AR18 in the U.K. Obviously they lost.. Also the video has this part in one of the development of the SA80, if I'm not mistaken Also small arms solutions (TH-cam channel) did an AR180/AR18 video entitled "most successful failure of the last century" For anyone interested in more info on 180/18 style rifles... As well as videos on the brn180 and the AR18(B) that polymer lowered AR made just before/during the AWB in the US For anyone interested in tons of AR-18/180 information
I'm a noob when it comes to AR-18, so as a noob I found it interesting that the BCG "loosely floats" in the upper. It's very "AK", as opposed to the AR-15 and Scar. Thanks for the interesting video
Two things: 1) in U.S. law, the preamble (in a rifle..) Is generally not considered a limitation to the claim (there are exceptions of course) and 2) the claims are almost product-by-process-- focusing on the method of manufacture, rather than the rifle itself. I suspect that all the folded metal limitations were the only way they could get around obviousness or even obviousness type double patenting issues.
The odd specification of materials and methods for even the fire controls made me thinking, was this really an oversight or did they aim to protect what they saw as best practice for manufacturing meaning that while copies could be made with some workarounds, mass production would either be a lot more expensive and/or result in inferior products, thus giving Armalilte a distinct competitive advantage?
@@johanmetreus1268 I think you have a classic example of what's referred to in the business as quote the "least patentable unit". My guess is that with the issues of obviousness, this was the only way they could get a patent. I'd have to look at the prosecution history in order to figure it all out. Basically, they wanted to put something out there that would scare off the more cautious, but wouldn't really be assertable against the bold.
Patents are a lot like music copyrights. A little note change here and we have a different tune that sounds a lot like an earlier one. Just different enough not to upset anyone, except maybe the earlier composer. I wonder who had the first idea for a stamped receiver? Too many notes my dear Mozart, just enough Master Gluck-
Patents can give more general protection than copyrights, but it depends on how innovative the invention is. In my line of work (software development), we can both patent and copyright our work. We can patent the general idea or pipeline of the program, but the copyright covers the code specifically, so it's much easier to subvert the copyright.
Steyr were also mental enough to use plastic in the fire control group for the AUG, because why bother with steel when your bullpup's trigger is going to be dogsh*t anyway? 🤷🏻♂️
Considering all that, i wonder what qualifies the AUG as an AR18 derivative? That it has two recoil springs, or that it is a short stroke gas piston system? As you mentioned there were other firearms before the AR18 that had that.
Nah, a Leader T2 has a polygonal 3-lug bolt that is clearly still an AR-18 derivative. AK's run on grooves in the receiver, have anti-pre-rotation and long stroke gas pistons. Admittedly edge cases can get difficult, but I know one when I see one...
@@BlokeontheRange The moving part in the AR18 gas sytem hits the bolt carrier, while the moving part in the AUG hits a guide rod that is attached to the carrier. Not that similar to a lay person like me. And the "rails" the AUG: the carrier itself doen't run on any rails, the carriers two guide rods run in cylinders of the "upper" receiverpart if i remember correct. (The two rods in the stock are only compressing the recoil springs in both guide rods, not providing any "railing". Maybe i am interpreting the word rails wrong as a non native english speaker but are cylinders rails? (But then a 4cylinder engine would be called a 4rail engine) Oh, and the AUG has a "prerotation prevention" (if i understand what that term means correct). It's a thin sheetmetal thing that interfaces with the rear of the bolthead until it is in battery. (I remember that one from the disassembling as it was the reason to turn the bolt over to have a better way of holding it and one of the few seperate parts we would disassemble the bolt carrier into)
Is it possible that it was intended to be easily replicated? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the AR18 was originally a “cheaper” and “easier” to manufacture rifle to supply foreign countries with arms more advanced than WW2/WW1 surplus. (Okay, you covered that a bit in the end.) but my question remains; it seems an intentional disbursement of “how-to” and not a “don’t do, or we’ll sue.”
Nope, if it's "intended to be replicated" don't spend a fortune patenting it, just publish a how-to... And you don't make money by setting yourself up to be copied.
Armalite wasn't set up for mass production it was basically a subsidiary firearms design bureau of the Fairchild aircraft company. They made their money from licensing or selling their designs to be produced by other manufacturing companies. As someone else pointed out the 7 lug rotating bolt was from Melvin Johnson's rifle design, the three part gas piston design was a direct copy of Fedor Tokarev's SVT rifle. The only thing that was really unique was at the time was the extensive use of stamped sheet metal in it's construction and the low cost per unit. The fact that it had US Patent and a long number stamped on the side would of deterred many from attempting to copy it but once it was copied by one company it was open season to all the rest. The reason it has become such a dominant design is that it is a simple but effective design that requires minimal machining, the tooling requirements are low and the cost per unit is low. Each manufacturer tweaks the basic design to match their particular production facility but once it's all set up they can churn them out in the hundreds of thousands at minimal cost. The only difficulty they now have is securing military contracts and avoiding any export restrictions.
Meh, a Supplementary Protection Certificate only adds another 5 years, and then only in very specific pharma cases. And much of the patent protection time is gone by the time the drug gets to market anyway.
Even proud German Heckler & Koch wasnt shy to copy AR-18 without much hesitation, G36 also uses its internals and also doesnt count under its pattern lol
Is it me... or are all modern firearms, pistol and rifle, just variations on something like 5-7different ideas? Blowback, tipping barrel, long stroke, short stroke, direct impingement, indirect impingement.....
Same reason almost all internal combustion engines follow one of a few basic overall patterns. Mechanical engineering is a remarkably Darwinian process. Most stupid ideas die out (albeit are often brought back from the grave, like gas delayed blowback), and only the good ideas remain in widespread use. For example, I cannot recall a modern (post WWII) long recoil weapon of any note that *isn't* a niche application (like a handful of heavy weapons, and the Lynx .50BMG rifle.) Bevause long recoil is a really dumb idea for most purposes (although it makes it very easy to ensure safe opening pressures, which is why it gets used on several "big boomers".)
A question then, why do you think the AR-15 is so little copied in comparison? Even assuming the patents were absolutely airtight, they should have expired decades ago shouldn't they? I've always liked the elegance of the DI(ish) gas system and wondered why we don't see it more often in certain weapons where it seems a good fit.
There's probably more different companies making AR-15's (both with the Stoner gas system and pistons, but the point still holds even if you exclude the latter) than ever made any particular basic firearms design in the history of ever; it's certainly the most copied firearms design in the known universe.
@@BlokeontheRange Haha ok, valid, my bad! I guess I meant the DI gas system on non AR rifles, but honestly I still don't know enough to know what I don't know if that makes sense - such a big world of firearms when you live in Australia...
It's a case of "why re-invent the wheel and have to shake out all the issues when you can literally just copy this 1:1 and you know it'll function right off the bat" :)
Im guessing it works well, is easy and cheap to manufacture and set up without massive resarch and development costs , ( if you dont mess with it SA80 ) it also works with polymer bodies too, manufactures have all come to the same conclusion that its the best system on all factors. The technology is played out and the AR has won.
Outside of patents, I believe that the AR-18 system is advantageous over the AR-15 in many ways. The bolt carrier has much simpler geometry which makes machining it easier. The guide rod and spring along with the bolt carrier allow the operating system to be less tied to the exact receiver.
The CQ began production in 1983, which appears to be immediately post patent (I didn't look up all of them, but the one Stoner patent I looked at expired Feb 1983).
The Stoner gas system US patent is US2951424. Granted 6 September 1960, expired 17 years later on 6 September 1977. The UK family member GB821974A was earlier than the law change, so expired 10 May 1973 (filing date 10 May 1957 + 16 years)
@@BlokeontheRange So do I. A little trick the underground used during the war to identify German infiltrators was to have them say "achtentachtig kacheltjes".
Patents allow people to get paid for original work and the cost/risk of doing it. It’s so important that it’s one of the few things the federal government can do that’s specifically mentioned in the US constitution.
The idea of a Patent is to encourage innovation and invention by rewarding whoever comes up with it a time to profit without being copied by all the cheapskates in the world. That could allow money for more research and development.
The *normal* case for patent expiry in Current Year, if all maintenance fees are paid, is 20 years from filing (of the application itself or the oldest parent if a divisional/continuation/continuation-in-part). US has a weird patent term adjustment thing in some cases, and many countries have 5-year extensions (Supplementary Protection Certificates, specific to certain pharma and plant protection products).
@@BlokeontheRange sorry, but as a member of the Swedish Inventors Association, I have to say there is a misconception of yours in the assumption that patents reward innovators by offering protection of the product. In reality, what a patent gives the innovator is the possibility to legally enforce exclusiveness for a limited time period. Potato/tomato? Not really, as a the difference is whether the innovation is actually protected, or as is today, only protected to the extent the patent holder can afford to cover the legal fees to uphold it AND can find the legal competence to make it work.
M guess pre view: no, there is nothig original on the AR18, because the only original part of the AR 15 is the gas sistem. Edit: and the patent is trash.
No. the gas system is not original tot he AR. The gas impingement system was used in the Swedish ljungman Introduced in 1942 and also licence built by Egypt as the Hakim
Don't be misled by the inappropriate labeling of the Stoner AR10 gas system as "direct inpingement", like the Swedish, Egyptian, or French rifles that use true direct gas impingement. The Stoner system really was new - it's actually a topologically inverted short stroke gas piston with a really long gas tube - the *bolt* (which remains stationary in terms of the gas operation - it only moves after the bolt carrier is already thrust to the rear) is the "piston", whilst the bolt carrier is the "cylinder". But it's inverted, like a spigot mortar is an inverted gun tube, where the central rod is solid and the hollow tail on the bomb is blown forward. The Stoner AR10 gas system allows for a *completely* straight line arrangement of forces, for true straight line recoil- making it far more controllable than contemporaries, even those that weigh far more. *All* of the significant force vectors are not only entirely coaxial to the bore axis, they are *concentric* to the bore axis. Thus, the only forces pushing the muzzle around (up, down, right, or left) are any muzzle device one mounts that defects the gases, and how one mounts the rifle for firing. If you don't have a muzzle brake applying assymetric forces, and you hold the rifle so there is a straight line from the muzzle through the bolt, through the stock, into the mounting point (i.e., your shoulder in most cases), the gun won't rise like pretty.much every other firearm has a tendency to do. Even if your mount is inperfect, or you have a muzzle device with that applies a slight force up or down, the muzzle deflection is minimized via geometry. And *that* was the secret sauce that Armalite sold to Colt.
Tokarev system, just as Kalashnikov, was not patented at all, because of Soviet Union being out of the Western legal system. So pretty much anybody could use the idea. And they did. The more interesting question is why nobody knocked off the Stoner action, which in my opinion by far superior. Nobody to this day. I think it's just because nobody is as smart as he was. :)
Nobody knocked off the Stoner action? As in the AR-10 / AR-15 action? Mate, every man, woman and dog is making AR15-derived rifles, all around the world! It's probably the most copied system ever XD
@@BlokeontheRange I don’t quite think so. Obviously if you consider the US civilian market then everybody and their mother are making AR uppers and components. But if you consider state militaries nobody based anything on stoner action. Canadians make AR 15 style rifles, but I think they are legit AR 15. What is really widespread is sticking an AR 18 action into an AR 15/10 body. Several countries have done that, including the US. But not so with Stoner action. I actually don’t know if lower receivers have anything to do with Gene Stoner, everybody copies them, of course. I may be missing something obvious here…
"Legit" AR-15's are still copies... You've got a ton of European manufacturers doing it, Norinco do it in China, and so on. They're usually closer copies. The "sticking an AR18 action into an AR15/10 body" are just piston modifications of AR 15/10 rifles - they don't tend to run on rails or have any of the other features that make an AR18 an AR18.
@@BlokeontheRange “Piston modification” means “no Stoner action”. I can’t think of anybody other than the Canadians that equip national army units with AR 15 copies. You can build your own AR 15 or 10 out of an 80p kit but it’s not the same as equipping an army with Steyr AUGs. My point is Stoner action has not been used for further development.
@@sergecashman5990 You can't think of anyone other than the Canadians? Hoookay, perhaps think a little longer about that? Also: "further development": why change near-perfection? There's no point in being proprietory for the sake of being proprietory.
Why hasn't there been any civilian ar-18s for the American market? It seems like a cheaper AR-15 alternative would do really good in today's market. Ik it didnt work out for armalite in the 80s and shit but people also weren't fully on the AR bandwagon yet. Its fucked up Canada gets to have (well, used to) modern Ar-18s and Type 81s and we don't fr.
There have been civilian AR-18's for the US market though: AR-180, which are literally the military ones with semiauto trigger groups, AR-180b (same but with a polymer lower iirc), and now the BRN-180 machined from solid and designed to fit AR15 lowers.
The AR18 has repeatedly failed to capture more than a niche market in the US, for much the same reason the AR18 didn't manage to beat out the AR15/M16 during Vietnam when the US mikitary was actually looking at options to bail out from the M16 when the first (self-inflicted by the US military) problems came up. The AR15 is generally superior in all operstor facing aspects. It handles better, is generally (when built to an equal standard of quality) more accurate, etc. What the AR18 *does* give the operator that an AR15 *doesn't* is the option for a folding stock without getting wonky with the buffer and recoil spring setup. But folding stocks are really quite worthless if you don't have the *neex* to be able to stow the rifle in the shortest compartment possible. Paratroopers, aviation crew needing a crash site rifle that otherwise sits on the helicopter in a bracket, armor or transportation troops who want a bit more than a SMG that sits in a bracket in their vehicle until they really need it, etc. For dismounted troops, or even mechanized troops who don't have a Soviet style IFV with firing ports that accept their individual rifle, a folding stock is nothing but a liability of more bits that can rust or break. For civilian use, one could make a case for police (the "it needs to fit in a bracket that can only be yay long"), or the oddball civilian who has a "just in case" rifle that "needs" to fit in a limited space under your car seat or inside a backpack. You want to see who benefits from a folding stock on their assault rifle? Look no further than the Soviet army and the Kalashnikov. Now, if one doesn't have an aerospace or other industry set up for casting and forging aluminum, but is set up for large scale low cost steel stampings (particularly fairly simple stampings, albeit ones that require at least decent steel), the AR18 is a better fit for the industrial requirements of your nation.
>new rifle comes to market
>look inside
>Oops all ar18!
I was surprised how easy it was to get around patents when I was doing my capstone project in college.
The sa80 was such a close copy functionally but was still unreliable due to the engineering team not being firearms/machining savvy?
Thanks for the cool video!
Thanks for your kind words! It really depends on the patent - some of them can be very difficult to get around indeed, whereas others (like those in the video) are trivial. Depends hugely on the prior art and the skill of the drafter, both of which are issues here!!!
It comes down to the entire operation not giving much of a shit because they were told they were out on their arse once the project was done.
I saw a challenge to a Provisional Patent for a solvent-proof dressing from 3M.
They described how they produced an alleged solvent-proof dressing on an ironing table.
If they were already selling that and ìt worked there would have been no call to make a dressing which did work but they had the market. It wasn't going to change.
According to Jim Sullivan, it's completely on the design and production team at Royal Ordnance. Here's a snippet of the interview I still have saved:
"I went over to Royal Ordnance, Nottingham; just short-term stuff. Looked at the British SA-80 program. It was at the time they were shutting down RSAF and Enfield. They had already switched all the manufacturing to Nottingham. There wasn't all that much to my involvement. They asked me to go over there and take a look at it, I did and I told them my views on the gun, and they got angry and that was the end of it.
From what I saw, everything about it was wrong. For instance, they were using an M16 type bolt and not making it right. In manufacturing it, first you drill a hole for the firing pin. Once that hole is there, everything centers on that hole. You turn the outside, you cut the slots and everything else. They didn't do that. They cut all the outside first, then tried to drill the hole for the firing pin in the center. It wasn't "true." Then they found out you can't drill a hole that way, holes go off this way and that way and aren't centered. To solve that, what they did was mess with the firing pin tip. The firing pin has a nice, respectable diameter for most of its length until the front. Instead of a tapered firing pin so that it's good and strong, they just narrowed it down, and they had the thing about a half-inch long, and just a sixteenth inch in diameter.
Another thing was the magazine well. It's a sheet metal receiver, and the magazine well is sheet metal, but it has to be welded on. That's fine. But the sheet metal stamping for the magazine well, they stamp the slot, the little hole, the slot for the magazine latch, they stamped it in there, and then they weld it on. I mean, sure, you save an operation because you can stamp the hole instead of machining it, but no two latch positions on any guns are precisely the same. Their magazines on some of the guns were jammed up and the bolt couldn't move 'cause the magazines were stuck in there on some guns. On other guns it was too low, wasn't feeding properly. They didn't fix this stuff, it just went on and on like that.
They'd hold plus or minus one-thousandth, completely unrealistic tolerances, which nobody could make the parts to. The firing on that trip when I went over there was still done at the only range they had, which was still at RSAF Enfield. One of the things you do to test is you load up a mag, put it up in the rifle, you fire a shot and let the thing cycle and chamber the next round, and then instead of firing that next round, you hand extract it and look for scratches on it. When I did this test, it was just scratched all to hell. They weren't up on that. The back end of the lugs, you've got to carefully smooth off that corner. These were just raw. It was just cutting the cartridges. I don't know why they weren't getting split cases from that. Maybe they were."
Hey there! I just discovered your channel, I happened upon it as I am a new collector of Armalite Rifles. I purchased 2 M4 Variant m-15 Armalite Carbines this year and they are amazing. They were used by the US Dept. of Energy. What a find! Great show here Cheers
Somewhere there's a photo of an AR16 or AR18 bolt carrier that's set up for Stoner-gas. I think the caption said it was on a pre-prototype gun before they realized they'd prevented themselves from using that gas system.
I wish someone would try again. I'm not interested in short-strokes pistons. But I'd like more variety and not just ARs and AKs in my safe
@@johnharker7194 You need to find a guy known as Doc a DMC Delorean, some radioactive material and something called a flux capacitor. Set the panel on the dashboard for the 9:00 am 1st of January 1986. 😂
The Japanese Type-89 is also based on the AR-18, albeit with an "inferior" handguard and burst fire mechanism
And a STANAG magwell, which fixed the main gripe I have with the AR18😊
Will the Type 20 be a better rifle?
@@Joshua_N-A it looks promising. first the wobbly crumbling handguard is made better. second, the selector switch isnt a fully rotating thing (you should see how they train with it) and is quicker to manipulate. also compounding on point #2, the elimination of the burst fire mechanism would save weight. adjustable stock and ambidextrous controls are more inclusive to the female soldiers and lefties
The newspaper title should've read:
DIRECT infringement
of a
DIRECT impingement!
I'll show myself out.
I really like the sliding cover for the bolt handle channel. The modern Canadian AR-180's should implement that.
That dumpster fire in the title card is adorable!
Glad you like it! I was just going to use the title card (booooring), then had a moment of inspiration :)
Speaking as a librarian, if I had to find something in a patent I'd totally want the pictures at the front (assuming we're in an era where this is all on paper) because then I could easily set those pages to one side and follow along while I read the text, instead of having to flip back and forth. Though that's assuming they're in a binder or just loose in a manila folder; if they were stapled then having the pictures at the back would be easier to remove them from the staple.
Nowadays everyone uses a cover page with bibliographic data, the abstract, and a small version of the most-relevant figure.
I have a Sterling AR-180 the only serious problem is the garbage magazine latch system. I was lucky a family friend jiggered a dozen 20 round M16 magazine and I found a few IMI plastic 30 rounders. Super accurate with the original Colt scope.
I loved shooting Ian's at desert brutality 2021, it was awesome indeed! And thanks for the tip! 😎
I don't normally get bored by these videos, that being said I still watched and enjoyed it. I'm not sure why I got sleepy watching this one but it could be that I didn't get much sleep last night, lol. Interesting information concerning how patents differ between countries and how important it is to have the important items being patented properly explained.
You put up the meme EXACTLY when I said "What??" out loud 😂
Thanks!
I never knew the SA-80 was a bulpup AR-18. But as soon as you took it apart you can see that its basically identical.
Except the AR-18 actually worked unlike the original model SA-80/L85A1.
@@Procket12 the SA-80 worked absolutely fine..... As long as one went to war in a climate controlled clean room.
Used to do some patent searching and reading in a previous design role. Very interesting thankyou.
It is a terrifying thought that among the heroes of firearms development, we may need to recognize the lawyers who actually managed to secure patent protection for their companies more effectively than their competitors. A huge fraction of the firearms designed since the 19th century can be traced to efforts to dodge or exploit patents at the expense of the original holders. Some truly bad ideas have been promoted for this reason, but some great ones have come about because of it as well.
Truly a fascinating history that one could disappear into if not wary!
Top nerdery Bloke.
Leaves me wodering what the world would have been if Armalite had done a competent job with their patents.
I don't see how you get a decent scope of protection here, particularly with the US "salami slice" approach to obviousness
Interesting background on an obscure subject of a well known platform
For a second I thought the rifle on the chair wants to scream the Emperor protec- I mean tenno heika banzai.
Even Sweden and Finland have jumped on the AR-18 party-train, both had AKish rifles (FNC and RK62), now they are jointly developing a very generic AR-18 derivative 😅
*AR-15
@@Hosenfuhrer the only real difference between an AR-15 and AR-18 is the metal stamping, so I guess you're kinda right.
@@RaDeus87 They are adopting Sako-built AR-15 variants. The gas system may be AR-18 gas system though.
@@RaDeus87 AR18 uses a pair of bolt carrier guide rails with concentric springs around each rail, and doesn't have the AR15's semi direct gas impingement bolt.
@@RaDeus87 that's wrong
Ian from forgotten weapons did a video on when ArmaLight tried to sue and made a bullpup AR18 in the U.K.
Obviously they lost..
Also the video has this part in one of the development of the SA80, if I'm not mistaken
Also small arms solutions (TH-cam channel) did an AR180/AR18 video entitled "most successful failure of the last century"
For anyone interested in more info on 180/18 style rifles... As well as videos on the brn180 and the AR18(B) that polymer lowered AR made just before/during the AWB in the US
For anyone interested in tons of AR-18/180 information
I'm a noob when it comes to AR-18, so as a noob I found it interesting that the BCG "loosely floats" in the upper. It's very "AK", as opposed to the AR-15 and Scar.
Thanks for the interesting video
Two things: 1) in U.S. law, the preamble (in a rifle..) Is generally not considered a limitation to the claim (there are exceptions of course) and 2) the claims are almost product-by-process-- focusing on the method of manufacture, rather than the rifle itself. I suspect that all the folded metal limitations were the only way they could get around obviousness or even obviousness type double patenting issues.
The odd specification of materials and methods for even the fire controls made me thinking, was this really an oversight or did they aim to protect what they saw as best practice for manufacturing meaning that while copies could be made with some workarounds, mass production would either be a lot more expensive and/or result in inferior products, thus giving Armalilte a distinct competitive advantage?
@@johanmetreus1268 I think you have a classic example of what's referred to in the business as quote the "least patentable unit". My guess is that with the issues of obviousness, this was the only way they could get a patent. I'd have to look at the prosecution history in order to figure it all out. Basically, they wanted to put something out there that would scare off the more cautious, but wouldn't really be assertable against the bold.
Das Video war voll interessant, danke.
I always understood that the original patent was around the firearm being made from materials that had never been used before and the 6 lug bolt.
A strange thing to understand, given that the materials had indeed been used before, and the bolt is 7 lugs on an 8 pitch, identical to an AR-15.
Patents are a lot like music copyrights. A little note change here and we have a different tune that sounds a lot like an earlier one. Just different enough not to upset anyone, except maybe the earlier composer. I wonder who had the first idea for a stamped receiver? Too many notes my dear Mozart, just enough Master Gluck-
Patents can give more general protection than copyrights, but it depends on how innovative the invention is. In my line of work (software development), we can both patent and copyright our work. We can patent the general idea or pipeline of the program, but the copyright covers the code specifically, so it's much easier to subvert the copyright.
Very interesting!
Steyr were also mental enough to use plastic in the fire control group for the AUG, because why bother with steel when your bullpup's trigger is going to be dogsh*t anyway? 🤷🏻♂️
That multi-lug rotating bolt goes back even farther than the AR-15. You can find one that looks almost identical on the M1941 Johnson rifle.
You can go even further back to the Fosbery shotgun.
Considering all that, i wonder what qualifies the AUG as an AR18 derivative?
That it has two recoil springs, or that it is a short stroke gas piston system? As you mentioned there were other firearms before the AR18 that had that.
It's a piston-driven AR-15-style bolt head in a carrier running on rails.
@@BlokeontheRange Thanks! so if they had kept the 3 lug bolt of the first 3 (of 7) prototypes it would have been called an AK derivative instead.
Nah, a Leader T2 has a polygonal 3-lug bolt that is clearly still an AR-18 derivative. AK's run on grooves in the receiver, have anti-pre-rotation and long stroke gas pistons. Admittedly edge cases can get difficult, but I know one when I see one...
@@BlokeontheRange
The moving part in the AR18 gas sytem hits the bolt carrier, while the moving part in the AUG hits a guide rod that is attached to the carrier.
Not that similar to a lay person like me.
And the "rails" the AUG: the carrier itself doen't run on any rails, the carriers two guide rods run in cylinders of the "upper" receiverpart if i remember correct.
(The two rods in the stock are only compressing the recoil springs in both guide rods, not providing any "railing".
Maybe i am interpreting the word rails wrong as a non native english speaker but are cylinders rails? (But then a 4cylinder engine would be called a 4rail engine)
Oh, and the AUG has a "prerotation prevention" (if i understand what that term means correct). It's a thin sheetmetal thing that interfaces with the rear of the bolthead until it is in battery. (I remember that one from the disassembling as it was the reason to turn the bolt over to have a better way of holding it and one of the few seperate parts we would disassemble the bolt carrier into)
Rods are a type of rail, yes. But anyway, look inside an AK and look inside an AUG and the difference should be come quite clear :)
They didn't want anyone manufacturing a cheaper copy than they made
It doesn't even stop that, no guarantees that pressed trigger components would work out cheaper
Blimey that is a master class of how *not* to write a patent.
no it's not, tho it is a magnificent example of why you need a law degree to give legal advice
Imo I'd wager that the ARs were actually patent protecting themselves by not associating themselves with the SA80a1's.... :|
Missed opportunity to have Rob (Britishmuzzleloaders) as the Canadian drop in photo.
Bolt face - Johnson rifle, piston SVT are pretty much the death nail
The coffin being that it's stamped steel that's a box
Is it possible that it was intended to be easily replicated? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the AR18 was originally a “cheaper” and “easier” to manufacture rifle to supply foreign countries with arms more advanced than WW2/WW1 surplus.
(Okay, you covered that a bit in the end.) but my question remains; it seems an intentional disbursement of “how-to” and not a “don’t do, or we’ll sue.”
Nope, if it's "intended to be replicated" don't spend a fortune patenting it, just publish a how-to... And you don't make money by setting yourself up to be copied.
Armalite wasn't set up for mass production it was basically a subsidiary firearms design bureau of the Fairchild aircraft company. They made their money from licensing or selling their designs to be produced by other manufacturing companies. As someone else pointed out the 7 lug rotating bolt was from Melvin Johnson's rifle design, the three part gas piston design was a direct copy of Fedor Tokarev's SVT rifle. The only thing that was really unique was at the time was the extensive use of stamped sheet metal in it's construction and the low cost per unit. The fact that it had US Patent and a long number stamped on the side would of deterred many from attempting to copy it but once it was copied by one company it was open season to all the rest. The reason it has become such a dominant design is that it is a simple but effective design that requires minimal machining, the tooling requirements are low and the cost per unit is low. Each manufacturer tweaks the basic design to match their particular production facility but once it's all set up they can churn them out in the hundreds of thousands at minimal cost. The only difficulty they now have is securing military contracts and avoiding any export restrictions.
This seems like a good weapon to mass produce for an army.
Which one? The SAR-80? The AR-18 itself is a brilliant rifle but is a bit flimsy for military use, the SAR is better on that front.
"[patents are] time limited as well, they don't go on forever"
Prescription drug companies: "Well yes, but also no."
Meh, a Supplementary Protection Certificate only adds another 5 years, and then only in very specific pharma cases. And much of the patent protection time is gone by the time the drug gets to market anyway.
They should just have said "don't copy me"
Even proud German Heckler & Koch wasnt shy to copy AR-18 without much hesitation, G36 also uses its internals and also doesnt count under its pattern lol
G36 is well after the expiry of the patent so I didn't mention it.
And what about Bushmaster ACR ? Is it derivative of AR18 ?
@@danielbrstak5730 of course it is, uses the same short-stroke gas system as AR-18
I think that every reference to "rifle" allows to ignore patent in the smoothbore weapons.
Is the HK G36 1 ?
Yes, but it's way after patent expiry.
Is it me... or are all modern firearms, pistol and rifle, just variations on something like 5-7different ideas?
Blowback, tipping barrel, long stroke, short stroke, direct impingement, indirect impingement.....
It was all pretty much figured out in the very early 20th century.
Duuuurrr wonder why
Yup. Things that work, work.
Same reason almost all internal combustion engines follow one of a few basic overall patterns.
Mechanical engineering is a remarkably Darwinian process. Most stupid ideas die out (albeit are often brought back from the grave, like gas delayed blowback), and only the good ideas remain in widespread use.
For example, I cannot recall a modern (post WWII) long recoil weapon of any note that *isn't* a niche application (like a handful of heavy weapons, and the Lynx .50BMG rifle.) Bevause long recoil is a really dumb idea for most purposes (although it makes it very easy to ensure safe opening pressures, which is why it gets used on several "big boomers".)
I wish someone would reintroduce correct clone of a AR 18
A question then, why do you think the AR-15 is so little copied in comparison? Even assuming the patents were absolutely airtight, they should have expired decades ago shouldn't they? I've always liked the elegance of the DI(ish) gas system and wondered why we don't see it more often in certain weapons where it seems a good fit.
The AR-15 is so little copied in comparison to the AR-18? Are you really sure about that? Everyone and his dog makes an AR-15 variant! Even the Russians and the Chinese! Here's an out of date list of AR-15 manufacturers that was even incomplete when it was compiled in 2015, and the number of manufacturers has only got bigger since...
1 2 Vets Arms Company, LLC
2 Adams Arms
3 ADCOR Defence
4 Addax
5 ADEQ Firearms Company
6 Advanced Defense Sysems (ADS)
7 Aeroprecision
8 AGP Arms
9 Alberta Tactical Rifle Supply
10 Alexander Arms
11 All Weapons One
12 Allstar Tactical LLC
13 Alpha Shooting Sports
14 Ambush Firearms
15 Ameetech*
16 American Precision Arms
17 American Spirit Arms
18 American Tacitcal Imports (ATI)
19 American Weapon Systems
20 Anderson Manufacturing
21 Anvil Arms*
22 AR 15 Plus
23 AR Permformance
24 AR15 Depot
25 AR15.com Armament Rifle
26 AR57 Center
27 Ardel Engineering (AE)
28 Ares Arms LLC.
29 Ares Defense
30 Arizona Armory (AZ)
31 Armalite
32 Armitage International LTD
33 ARMS LLC
34 Arm's Tech LTD
35 Astra Arms
36 ATT Tactical
37 AXTS Weapons
38 Balimoy
39 Barnes Precision
40 Barret Firearms Manufacturing
41 Bartlett Enterprises
42 Battle Born Rifles
43 Battle Rifle Company
44 Bazooka Brothers Manufacturing
45 Black Dawn
46 Black Diamond SOCOM Mfg.
47 Black Gold custom Arms
48 Black Heart International
49 Black Hole Weaponry
50 Black Rain
51 Black Scorpion Firearms
52 Black Weapons Armory
53 Blackthorne
54 BMG Inc
55 Bohica Arms
56 Bradley Arms
57 Branch Custom Weaponry
58 Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM)
59 Bushmaster Firearms International
60 C3 Defense
61 Cavalry Arms*
62 Centurion Arms
63 Centurion Tactical
64 Century
65 Century Arms
66 Charles Daly
67 Chattahoochee Gun Works LLC
68 Chengdu Hongguag Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd
69 Chiappa Firearms
70 Christensen Arms
71 Christian Armory Works (CAW)
72 CIV Tactical
73 CMMG
74 CMS*
75 Cobra Tactical
76 Colt's
77 Compass Lake Engineering (CLE)
78 Conquest Arms
79 Controlled Chaos Arms
80 Core15
81 Crusader Weaponry
82 D.S. Arms
83 Dalphon Firearms*
84 Daniel Defense
85 Dedicated Technology
86 Delaware Machinery
87 Delta Arms Company
88 Del-Ton
89 Denny's Guns
90 Detroit Gun Works
91 Diemaco*
92 Dlask Arms
93 Double Diamond Law Enforcement Supply
94 Double Star
95 DPMS / Panther Arms
96 Dreadnaught Industries
97 Duty Precision Machinery Shops (DPM Shops)
98 Eagle Arms
99 East Coast Gun Sales
100 Echigoya
101 Edward Arms
102 Elite Arms
103 Essential Arms
104 Fabrique Nationale
105 Firebird Precision
106 Frankford Arsenal
107 Franklin Armory
108 Frozen North Firearms*
109 Fulton Armory
110 GA Precision (GAP)
111 Galati International
112 GAR Arms
113 Global Tactical
114 GM Corp.*
115 Good Time Outdoors Inc
116 Grenadier Precision*
117 Group Industries*
118 GT Vertical Concepts (GTVC)
119 Gun Smoke Enterprises
120 H&H Enterprises
121 Harrington and Richarson (H&R)*
122 Hatcher Gun Company
123 Head Down Products
124 Hecklor and Koch
125 Henderson Defense
126 Hera Arms
127 Hera Arms, Germany
128 Hesse
129 High Mountain Hunting Supply
130 High Standard Manufacturing Company
131 Hogan guns
132 Holland Gun Works
133 Houlding Precision
134 Huldra Arms
135 Integrity Arms and Survival
136 Iron Ridge Arms
137 JARD Inc.
138 JD Machine
139 JP Enterprises
140 JSE Surplus
141 Kaiser Defense
142 Kiss Tactical
143 Knights Armament Co. (KAC)
144 Kurt's Kustom Firearms (KKF)
145 L&G weaponry
146 Lancer Systems
147 Land Warfare Research Company (LWRC)
148 Lantac, UK
149 LAR Grizzly
150 LaRue
151 Lauer Custom Weaponry (LCW)
152 LBR Arms
153 Legion Firearms
154 Les Bauer
155 Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT)
156 Liberty Arms
157 Liberty Tactical
158 Loki
159 Lone Wolf Distributing
160 M Weapons
161 Mack Gwinn Industries (?) (MGI)
162 Magpul
163 Mattel Corp.*
164 McKay Enterprises LLC.
165 Mean Metal Inc
166 Medesha Fireamrs
167 Mega Arms
168 Model 1 Sales
169 Mohawk Armory
170 Molot
171 Mossberg
172 National Ordinance Company
173 New Evolution Military Ordinance (NEMO)
174 New Frontier Armory
175 Next Generation Arms
176 Nodak
177 Nordic Components
178 Norinco
179 North East Arms
180 Noveske
181 Oberland Arms, Gemany
182 Olympic Arms
183 Palmetto State Armory
184 Palmetto State Defense
185 Para - USA
186 Patriot Defense Arms
187 Patriot Ordinance (POF)
188 Plum Crazy
189 Precision Firearms
190 Precision Guncraft
191 Predator Custom Shop
192 Predator Tactical
193 PRI Uppers
194 Primary Weapons Systems (PWS)
195 ProArms
196 PWA*
197 Quality Arms
198 Quentin Defence
199 R Guns
200 Rainer Arms
201 Ratworx
202 RCM Gun Parts
203 Red Jacket Firearms
204 Red X Arms
205 Remington
206 RGM inc
207 Rifle Dynamics
208 RifleGear
209 RND
210 Rock Island Arsenal
211 Rock River Arms
212 Rocky Mountain Arms
213 Roggio Arsenal
214 Ruger
215 S I Defense
216 Saber Tactical
217 Sabre Defence*
218 Schmeisser, Germany
219 Scorpion Tactical
220 Seekins Precision
221 Senda Corp*
222 Sendra
223 SGW*
224 Shadow Ops Weaponry
225 Sharps Rifle Company/Sharps rifle
226 Sig Arms
227 Sionics
228 Smith & Wesson
229 SNS Industries*
230 SOCOM Mfg.
231 Sog Arms
232 Sonju Defense
233 Southern Gun Co.
234 Specialized Dynamics
235 Specialized Tacitcal Systems
236 Spike's Tactical
237 Stag Arms
238 State of the Art Arms (SOTA)
239 Sterling Arsenal
240 Stinger Arms
241 Sun Devil
242 Superior Arms
243 Suplus Ammo and Arms
244 Tactial Weapons Solutions
245 Tactical Ammunition
246 Tactical Arms Manufacturing
247 Tactical Innovations
248 Tactical Machining
249 Tactics LLC*
250 Templar Custom
251 Templar Tactical Arms
252 Teppo Jutsu LLC.
253 Thompson Machine
254 Thor Glocal Defense
255 Timberwolf Tactical
256 Titan Ordinance
257 TKS Engineering
258 TNW Firearms
259 Tommy15
260 Top Notch Tacitcal (TNT)
261 Triplett Firearms
262 Tromix
263 U T Arms
264 Umbrella Corporation Weapons Research Group
265 US Fireams Academy
266 USA Tactical Firearms
267 Valkyrie Arms
268 Vidalia Police Supply
269 Vltor
270 Vulcan Armament
271 WFC Proshop
272 White Oaks Armament
273 Wilson Combat
274 Windham Weaponry
275 Xtreme Machinig
276 Yankee Hill Machine (YHM)
277 Z M Weapons
278 Zel Custom Manufacturing
279 Zombie Defense
There's probably more different companies making AR-15's (both with the Stoner gas system and pistons, but the point still holds even if you exclude the latter) than ever made any particular basic firearms design in the history of ever; it's certainly the most copied firearms design in the known universe.
@@BlokeontheRange Haha ok, valid, my bad! I guess I meant the DI gas system on non AR rifles, but honestly I still don't know enough to know what I don't know if that makes sense - such a big world of firearms when you live in Australia...
It's a case of "why re-invent the wheel and have to shake out all the issues when you can literally just copy this 1:1 and you know it'll function right off the bat" :)
@@BlokeontheRange That both makes sense and is slightly disappointing, clearly truth haha. Cheers for the correction, don't know what I was thinking!
Im guessing it works well, is easy and cheap to manufacture and set up without massive resarch and development costs , ( if you dont mess with it SA80 ) it also works with polymer bodies too, manufactures have all come to the same conclusion that its the best system on all factors. The technology is played out and the AR has won.
I think from all those derivatives from the ar-180 the best is the Aussie leader T2 such a good and easy to maintain rifle
Patents dont last forever, there was little in the AR-10 to patent.
Err, the key thing of the AR-10 was its gas system. A huge deal. That's what Colt bought.
Clearly notices you work as a patent attorney or similiar 😅
A comrade on me left and another one one me right
Outside of patents, I believe that the AR-18 system is advantageous over the AR-15 in many ways. The bolt carrier has much simpler geometry which makes machining it easier. The guide rod and spring along with the bolt carrier allow the operating system to be less tied to the exact receiver.
Sheet metal!
I watch Othais. Feel free to go down a rabbit hole.
Chinese AR-15 copy comes to mind of not caring about patents .
There was no patent in China for them to infringe 🤷♀️
The CQ began production in 1983, which appears to be immediately post patent (I didn't look up all of them, but the one Stoner patent I looked at expired Feb 1983).
@@BlokeontheRange If there was they still won't care.
The Stoner gas system US patent is US2951424. Granted 6 September 1960, expired 17 years later on 6 September 1977. The UK family member GB821974A was earlier than the law change, so expired 10 May 1973 (filing date 10 May 1957 + 16 years)
Take a shot every time the word "said" is used in the patent claims 😂
You nearly pronounced Artillerie-Inrichtingen correctly...
I think I did OK for not having lived in NL for 11 years...
@@BlokeontheRange So do I. A little trick the underground used during the war to identify German infiltrators was to have them say "achtentachtig kacheltjes".
Patent? *laughs while brandishing an XL64*
Patents expire. 25 years usually but regardless patents stifle innovation
Sorry, but no they don't, not on either count...
Patents allow people to get paid for original work and the cost/risk of doing it. It’s so important that it’s one of the few things the federal government can do that’s specifically mentioned in the US constitution.
The idea of a Patent is to encourage innovation and invention by rewarding whoever comes up with it a time to profit without being copied by all the cheapskates in the world. That could allow money for more research and development.
The *normal* case for patent expiry in Current Year, if all maintenance fees are paid, is 20 years from filing (of the application itself or the oldest parent if a divisional/continuation/continuation-in-part). US has a weird patent term adjustment thing in some cases, and many countries have 5-year extensions (Supplementary Protection Certificates, specific to certain pharma and plant protection products).
@@BlokeontheRange sorry, but as a member of the Swedish Inventors Association, I have to say there is a misconception of yours in the assumption that patents reward innovators by offering protection of the product.
In reality, what a patent gives the innovator is the possibility to legally enforce exclusiveness for a limited time period.
Potato/tomato? Not really, as a the difference is whether the innovation is actually protected, or as is today, only protected to the extent the patent holder can afford to cover the legal fees to uphold it AND can find the legal competence to make it work.
M guess pre view: no, there is nothig original on the AR18, because the only original part of the AR 15 is the gas sistem.
Edit: and the patent is trash.
No. the gas system is not original tot he AR. The gas impingement system was used in the Swedish ljungman Introduced in 1942 and also licence built by Egypt as the Hakim
Don't be misled by the inappropriate labeling of the Stoner AR10 gas system as "direct inpingement", like the Swedish, Egyptian, or French rifles that use true direct gas impingement.
The Stoner system really was new - it's actually a topologically inverted short stroke gas piston with a really long gas tube - the *bolt* (which remains stationary in terms of the gas operation - it only moves after the bolt carrier is already thrust to the rear) is the "piston", whilst the bolt carrier is the "cylinder". But it's inverted, like a spigot mortar is an inverted gun tube, where the central rod is solid and the hollow tail on the bomb is blown forward.
The Stoner AR10 gas system allows for a *completely* straight line arrangement of forces, for true straight line recoil- making it far more controllable than contemporaries, even those that weigh far more. *All* of the significant force vectors are not only entirely coaxial to the bore axis, they are *concentric* to the bore axis. Thus, the only forces pushing the muzzle around (up, down, right, or left) are any muzzle device one mounts that defects the gases, and how one mounts the rifle for firing. If you don't have a muzzle brake applying assymetric forces, and you hold the rifle so there is a straight line from the muzzle through the bolt, through the stock, into the mounting point (i.e., your shoulder in most cases), the gun won't rise like pretty.much every other firearm has a tendency to do. Even if your mount is inperfect, or you have a muzzle device with that applies a slight force up or down, the muzzle deflection is minimized via geometry.
And *that* was the secret sauce that Armalite sold to Colt.
Tokarev system, just as Kalashnikov, was not patented at all, because of Soviet Union being out of the Western legal system. So pretty much anybody could use the idea. And they did. The more interesting question is why nobody knocked off the Stoner action, which in my opinion by far superior. Nobody to this day. I think it's just because nobody is as smart as he was. :)
Nobody knocked off the Stoner action? As in the AR-10 / AR-15 action? Mate, every man, woman and dog is making AR15-derived rifles, all around the world! It's probably the most copied system ever XD
@@BlokeontheRange I don’t quite think so. Obviously if you consider the US civilian market then everybody and their mother are making AR uppers and components. But if you consider state militaries nobody based anything on stoner action. Canadians make AR 15 style rifles, but I think they are legit AR 15. What is really widespread is sticking an AR 18 action into an AR 15/10 body. Several countries have done that, including the US. But not so with Stoner action. I actually don’t know if lower receivers have anything to do with Gene Stoner, everybody copies them, of course. I may be missing something obvious here…
"Legit" AR-15's are still copies... You've got a ton of European manufacturers doing it, Norinco do it in China, and so on. They're usually closer copies. The "sticking an AR18 action into an AR15/10 body" are just piston modifications of AR 15/10 rifles - they don't tend to run on rails or have any of the other features that make an AR18 an AR18.
@@BlokeontheRange “Piston modification” means “no Stoner action”. I can’t think of anybody other than the Canadians that equip national army units with AR 15 copies. You can build your own AR 15 or 10 out of an 80p kit but it’s not the same as equipping an army with Steyr AUGs. My point is Stoner action has not been used for further development.
@@sergecashman5990 You can't think of anyone other than the Canadians? Hoookay, perhaps think a little longer about that? Also: "further development": why change near-perfection? There's no point in being proprietory for the sake of being proprietory.
I do think the AUG is different enough not to be described as an AR18 system
Goes to show there’s nothing 100% new in firearms design
American here what the hell is an AR 18?
A product Armalite marketed after they sold the rights to the AR-15 to Colt. It uses a short stroke system.
p.s.: read the wiki
What Arnold uses in Terminator 1 among other guns.
America's greatest export...to Ireland.
Why hasn't there been any civilian ar-18s for the American market? It seems like a cheaper AR-15 alternative would do really good in today's market. Ik it didnt work out for armalite in the 80s and shit but people also weren't fully on the AR bandwagon yet.
Its fucked up Canada gets to have (well, used to) modern Ar-18s and Type 81s and we don't fr.
There have been civilian AR-18's for the US market though: AR-180, which are literally the military ones with semiauto trigger groups, AR-180b (same but with a polymer lower iirc), and now the BRN-180 machined from solid and designed to fit AR15 lowers.
The AR18 has repeatedly failed to capture more than a niche market in the US, for much the same reason the AR18 didn't manage to beat out the AR15/M16 during Vietnam when the US mikitary was actually looking at options to bail out from the M16 when the first (self-inflicted by the US military) problems came up.
The AR15 is generally superior in all operstor facing aspects. It handles better, is generally (when built to an equal standard of quality) more accurate, etc.
What the AR18 *does* give the operator that an AR15 *doesn't* is the option for a folding stock without getting wonky with the buffer and recoil spring setup. But folding stocks are really quite worthless if you don't have the *neex* to be able to stow the rifle in the shortest compartment possible. Paratroopers, aviation crew needing a crash site rifle that otherwise sits on the helicopter in a bracket, armor or transportation troops who want a bit more than a SMG that sits in a bracket in their vehicle until they really need it, etc.
For dismounted troops, or even mechanized troops who don't have a Soviet style IFV with firing ports that accept their individual rifle, a folding stock is nothing but a liability of more bits that can rust or break.
For civilian use, one could make a case for police (the "it needs to fit in a bracket that can only be yay long"), or the oddball civilian who has a "just in case" rifle that "needs" to fit in a limited space under your car seat or inside a backpack.
You want to see who benefits from a folding stock on their assault rifle? Look no further than the Soviet army and the Kalashnikov.
Now, if one doesn't have an aerospace or other industry set up for casting and forging aluminum, but is set up for large scale low cost steel stampings (particularly fairly simple stampings, albeit ones that require at least decent steel), the AR18 is a better fit for the industrial requirements of your nation.