Available at Morphy’s here:
https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_N__ARTILLERIE_INRICHTINGEN_AR10_MACHINE_GUN__PRE_-LOT667077.aspx
Guatemala was one of the handful of countries to purchase original AR-10 rifles, made at Artillerie Inrichtingen (AI) in the Netherlands. The sale was made by Sam Cummings, legendary arms dealer. He spent much of 1957 and 1958 traveling through Central and South America demonstrating the new AR-10 to virtually every country’s military. In Guatemala, his demonstration resulted in an immediate order for 450 rifles to be delivered to the Escuela Politécnica (the military academy) for more extensive testing. The guns were delivered in late 1958, with serial numbers between approximately 3000 and 3500 (they were made immediately following production of the Sudanese contract batch). These Guatemalan rifles are distinctive for their ventilated bayonet shrouds, which were provided on no other rifles. While none of the Guatemalan rifles were fitted with bipods, a shortage of regular hand guards led AI to fit many of them with leftover Sudanese contract hand guards contoured for folding bipod legs.
The Guatemalan AR-10s were sold as surplus by the Escuela Politécnica to an American importer in 1985, and they were brought into the US as a mix of parts kits and pre-86 Dealer Samples. Today, most of the intact and unmodified Dutch-production AR-10s in the US (including this example) are from the Guatemalan contract.
Interesting video on the AR-10. Lots of great information.
I keep looking at the “bicycle rifle” behind you. How does the stock swivel? It appears to swing down and back, but I can’t see for sure.
Over-under fire-arm see in background is Marble Game Getter
It does have under-folding stock, see https://youtu.be/D5WDL_Dng04?t=263 for visual presentation
[OFF-TOPIC so ignore if you wish]
According to https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/03/usmc-says-no-thanks-to-army-m7-squad-rifle-and-will-stick-with-m27-instead/ USMC spokes-person provide following view at NGSW
The Marine Corps will retain the M27 for our close combat formations as it best aligns with our unique service requirements, amphibious doctrinal employment of weapons, and distinct modernization priorities, while ensuring seamless interoperability across the Joint force and with coalition partners.
and that
We will continue to monitor development of the M7 [Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle] to inform future requirements
I understand that it is easier to get 5,56 mm ammunition from allied forces, as it is more popular worldwide, but what makes M7 unfit for amphibious usage?
The real question is, what makes the M7 fit for any combat use?
The Marines, at least, seem to have finally figured out what an individual weapon is supposed to be doing on the modern battlefield. And, it ain’t playing Alvin York out past 300m, either…
I remain dubious of the entire proposition of this NGSW “M-14 redux” BS, but here we are, onto the next, even smaller iteration in the M8. At some point, they’re going to get these things into combat, the results are going to resemble what happened in Vietnam with the M-14, and then they’ll likely flee the whole thing into another excuse of a program like the M-16 represented with the adoption of the SCHV.
Reality? Just like with the M-14 failure, they should just go back to what worked, not forward into some unproven idea. We’re just lucky that the SCHV deal gave us something that was adequate and workable; whatever the morons go to after NGSW, we probably won’t be so lucky. God only looks after drunkards and fools for so long, until he tires of the stupidity and lets them drown.
I’m actually rather impressed with the Marine’s choices: I think the M27 is a pricey bespoke abortion of a weapon, but it does work, and it does do what an individual weapon should do under today’s conditions. What the Army is doing? Not so much…
You really wish that the AR-10 had been more prepared for prime-time than it was. Had that been the case, we might have gotten a decent rifle that kinda-sorta actually worked with 7.62 NATO, and things would look a lot different in terms of small arms history.
Friend of mine got his hands on one of the Sudanese contract AR-10s, one of the dealer sample versions they brought in. His testimony was that it was the sole 7.62 NATO rifle he ever fired that was truly controllable on full-auto, and that it should have been “the one”. Being as he was a widely-experienced shooter, and a former SF Weapons Sergeant, I have to bow before his expertise.
I’ve always been rather fond of the AR-10, and it remains one of my very favorite “Might Have Been” things in small arms history.
Apparently AR-10 is still evolving and recently spawned Genesis Gen-12 shotgun
https://modernfirearms.net/en/shotguns/u-s-a-shotguns/genesis-gen-12-2/
What is quite unusual is that is no longer gas-operated, but rather uses short recoil action, which is rarely encountered in modern long guns, both rifles and shotguns. This action uses a recoiling barrel which is locked by a rotary bolt, which is combined with an AR-style bolt carrier and spring-buffer system.
Why is this that way? Are differently chambered recoil-operated offspring of AR-10 likely to appear? How does it compare in terms of felt-recoil against Intrepid RAS-12 / AR-12 https://modernfirearms.net/en/shotguns/u-s-a-shotguns/intrepid-ras-12-ar-12-eng/ whilst using ballistically equivalent ammunition?
Is that fiberglass inside front handguard ?
According to my AR-10 book, that would be a “yes”.
In particular phenolic resin reinforced by sheets of woven fiberglass.
DIY boatbuilders approve! heh
I was fortunate enough to meet Sam Cummings back in the 1990s at hie British HQ. A very charming and hospitable gentleman, who was happy to help me with my research for an article. It was a pleasure to have met him.