The AR-16 was developed in the late 1950s as a less manufacturing intensive option to the AR-10. It began with the AR-12, which was a prototype intended to use a stamped receiver with the Stoner DI gas system. When Armalite sold the AR-15 patents to Colt, they had to revise that design, and it became the AR-14, with a Tokarev type short stroke gas piston and a stamped receiver. Two of these rifles were originally made, both chambered for .308 with folding stocks and mostly stamped parts. They were offered for sale, but there were no buyers – by the time the AR16 was ready most countries who needed a new rifle had already chosen the FAL, H&K G3, M14, or other option. Instead, when Stoner left Armalite, Arthur Miller scaled the AR-16 down to 5.56mm, where it became the AR-18.
Thanks to the Institute of Military Technology for allowing me to have access to these, the only two existing AR-16 examples film for you! Check them out at:
http://www.instmiltech.com
Long since debunked. Stoner thought the M14 was “useless” in ordinary soldiers’ hands and talks at length here about how opposition to 5.56 was based on prejudice, politics, groundless theories and blatantly rigged tests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5jtUS1kgt8
Best. Christmas. Ever.
I’ve been wanting to see inside one of these incredibly rare weapons since forever; for a long time, they were damn near mythical.
Ian is to be commended, nay… Praised!
As to the Stoner attitude towards 5.56mm, you have to remember that you have the legacy of what Stoner said at the time compared to what Stoner said years later: They’re not the same. He changed his opinion, based on experience.
As I recall, the conversion of the AR-10 to the AR-15 was done mostly by Sullivan, and as Stoner was departing Fairchild. The timeline and actual responsibility for the design work has never been made all that clear.
So, yeah… If you go on what Stoner said and did during the early years, he was not a proponent of the 5.56. Later on? Yes, he was.
Myself, I don’t have an actual opinion based on facts I can bring to the table; I have the feeling that 5.56mm NATO is just a tad “light in the loafers”, but I’ve got precisely Jack and Squat to show for objective proof of that, mostly due to the fact that ain’t nobody been doing the necessary, so far as research goes.
All of this debate is subjective as hell, and the one thing I will assert now and continue to assert until I’m on my deathbed is that there isn’t anyone who really knows anything for a fact and can prove it to others. Mostly because the requisite work hasn’t been done.
Observationally, 5.56mm seems to work well enough. The way I see it, unless I could definitively and absolutely prove that there’s a better alternative out there, one that’s quantifiably superior? I’d leave the whole thing the hell alone, and continue on our merry dual-caliber solution. That’s the proven “desire path” that everyone and their cousin has wound up with, world-wide, so… Yeah. I’m behind that, as a rational pragmatist.
The “One Cartridge to Rule Them All” ideas have proven themselves to be either too much in the individual weapon or too little in the MG support role. As such, I am against them.
As far as I know, Sullivan and Fremont not only made the AR15, but also the Stoner 63, since Stoner really designed the Stoner 62, in 7.62. The first weapon in 5.56 designed by Stoner had been the Stoner 86, just a pair of years before the 1888 interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRzMCjMr9kc
Lethality could be considered subjective, or at least has too many variables to conclusively prove either way.
7.62 has one “advantage” – extreme long range – that is irrelevant to the individual weapon role.
The advantages of 5.56 – ammo/mag weight, ammo/mag bulk, prone height, FA controllability, ease of training inexperienced and/or smaller shooters, use of strategic materials, cost – are not subjective. Doesn’t mean it’s perfect (such a thing does not exist), but it is objectively more suitable for this role.
Which is precisely why I’m not willing to write it off.
Hell, 5.56mm may be the perfect cartridge, when you factor everything in. However, I have no way of objectively proving that idea, sooooo…
Either way you look at it all, it’s up in the air.
You cannot reconcile the two roles, that of “good individual weapon cartridge” and “good support weapon cartridge”. It’s not possible get one thing to do both, not with current technology.
Agreed, and I wouldn’t write off either cartridge entirely, just thinking horses for courses.
It is often difficult or impossible to find a perfectly, inarguably right answer; but often quick and easy to narrow the field by crossing objectively Wrong Answers off the list. 5.56 can safely be crossed off the MMG cartridge list in a heartbeat. Ditto for 7.62N in individual weapons.
If I had all of 2025’s cartridges available for an individual weapon in 1950, I’d probably choose one of the intermediate 6mms or 6.5s. In 2025 reality, none offer anywhere near enough advantages to justify retooling the logistics for the whole US, not to mention all of NATO.
I was listening to your ‘cast about the M-7and I recalled an old metallic silhouette cartridge. It is called the 7mm TCU (Thompson Contender Udall) This is a 5.56X 45. This brass is necked up to 7mm. There are no problems with magazines and a barrel change as well ass adjust the gas to bolt carrier. When fired from a 14 inch barrel it was very accurate from a Thompson- Contender. I can only surmise the accuracy from the M-4 platform. Just saying? It would save a BUNCH of USD. what are your thoughts on this? Also A tungsten penetrater would fit inside a 7MM round.
beautiful firearm, please someone make them.
Sadly, stamped receivers and so forth aren’t cheap enough to make, in order to justify the production runs that would make these affordable.
Still, I like the way you think.
These days with first CAD/CAM and even 3D printing, it would probably be cheaper to mill the receiver from solid or even print it in sintered metal or an epoxy-bonded sintering, as opposed to stampings.
Stamping was SOTA then, mainly from the automobile industry.
Today, cars are still made that way, in Southeast Asia.
clear ether
eon
What is this epoxy used for? And how.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377861489_Epoxy-Based_Copper_Cu_Sintering_Pastes_for_Enhanced_Bonding_Strength_and_Preventing_Cu_Oxidation_after_Sintering
Another byproduct of space technology. If it can be used to create chip superstructures that are literally as hard as diamond, using it to create 3D structures like this is a question of scale more than anything else.
cheers
eon
Considering the AR16 has frontal locking lugs, and the guides of the bolt are the spring guides, the receiver doesn’t need to be that sturdy at all. It likely can be made of cast zamak (and only because fiberglass reinforced polymer can have problems with heat).
Is magazine of AR-16 inter-changeable with AR-10 one? If not do your proposal include keeping original magazine or altering AR-16 to take another type of magazine?
Since the AR-16 magazine is a rock and lock one, the closest one readily available would be the M14 one.
They do but in a bullpup form as the K&M Arms 308
The Indonesian Pindad SS-79 prototype is basically an AR-16
Range advantage in an individual weapon is not irrelevant. Tell that to people in Afghanistan facing old Brit. .303 with 5.56 rifles and carbines. Lots of experts here who form opinions, never to be shaken by a changing environment. 5.56/.223 is a great Urban or jungle/thick woodland where the range is under 200 meters on most days. The solution would be a weapon with interchangeable barrels, chambers and calibers based on the battlefield to solve the argument against one round for all. And Murphy’s Laws of Combat state that the MG you are supposed to have/useable, will be gone or broken at the most inopportune moment.
They were not facing old Brit .303. They were facing PK machineguns used as they should have.
https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-16?file=AR16SMG.jpg shows that unit for firing 9mm cartridge was entertained for AR-16, which is described thusly
Barrel and upper action
of the AR-16 automatic rifle. By remov-
ing pins, it can be discarded and the
short light unit seen below substi-
tued. Latter fires 9mm or any other
enemy round, depending on design.
Was such unit actually made or it stay at blueprints stage?
This is a neat idea, however it looks like there is too short of a receiver to nicely function as 9mm smg,
maybe if design of that upper addon 9mm receiver was something like Walther MP or uzi-like bolt was used, that is spread towards the muzzle.
Very importantly, where are the many benefits of such dubious arrangements, instead of using a dedicated bona fide SMG.
If the MG team isn’t there, the unit is not combat-capable any more. Period. Pack your shit; you need to get the hell out of Dodge.
All of the advocates for long-range individual weapon work are delusional, in terms of “how to fight and actually win”. I keep repeating this, and the point simply does not get through: If you are relying on individually spotted and engaged targets out past about 300m to achieve victory, you’re going to lose the rest of the war. Armies operating on those principles will waste their time and energy to no effect.
The point is not “I am hitting everything I see” but “I’m missing everything I don’t see…”
You see one guy, shoot at him, maybe hit him with your superior uber-rifle skills. I see one guy, center a couple of nice, tight beaten zones around him, and I kill six or seven other men, plus some random wounded. Who has just had more combat effect?
You blew your opportunity to kill multiple enemy soldiers with your ego-driven desire to prove what a marksman you are; I cold-bloodedly murdered a bunch of people who were likely on their way to kill me and mine. Who is winning, there?
This is why the US and others have been losing the small arms fights they’ve gotten into. We got away with it for years, decades even, but once the arseholes restricted our use of supporting fires through ROE, we started losing engagements. This is why; you do not plan for using individual weapons much past 300m and winning. Despite the warm fuzzies it gives the individual rifle enthusiasts, the simple fact is that IT DOES NOT WORK TACTICALLY. You are not the Paladin, “Have gun; will travel”. You are part of a team, and that team needs you doing other things besides playing at the game of marksmanship.
This is the entirety of the issue, the misunderstanding of how combat really works. Or, at least, worked up until the recent advent of the drone; I remain flexible and open-minded on the changes that will bring in.
“(…)need to get the hell out of Dodge.(…)”
Wait. Which one https://truck-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/Dodge-WC-3-4-tons-series.php exactly?
@Daweo,
As the Urban Dictionary has it:
To leave somewhere immediately, to evacuate or scram.
“Get the hell out of Dodge” is a reference to Dodge City, Kansas, which was a favorite location for westerns in the early to mid 20th century. Most memorably, the phrase was made famous by the TV show “Gunsmoke,” in which villians were often commanded to “get the hell out of Dodge.” The phrase took on its current meaning in the 1960s and 70s when teenagers began to use it in its current form.
Awesome. We’re done here, so lets get the hell out of dodge!
Is there any documentation of any of these prototypes being test fired? There doesn’t seem to be any real information on testing.