Nylon 66: Remington’s Revolutionary Plastic Rifle

In the 1950s, Remington decided that it needed an inexpensive new .22 self-loading rifle to add to its catalog. In looking at how to reduce the cost of such a rifle, they hit upon the idea of using polymer to replace the wooden furniture typically used – and to replace the metal receiver as well. Remington was owned by DuPont at the time, and DuPont had developed an excellent strong polymer which they called “Nylon” – specifically, Nylon composition number 66.

Remington engineers developed a massively complex and expensive mold to inexpensively stamp out monolithic polymer .22 rifles in the mid 1950s. They knew this design would cause concern to a large part of their market because of its non-traditional construction, and so they put the new rifles through hundreds of thousands of rounds of grueling testing. It passed these trials with flying colors, and was released in January 1959 to pretty rave reviews. By the time it was finally taken out of production in 1987, more than 1,050,000 of them had been produced – a fantastic success on a pretty big gamble.

Thanks to Dutch Hillenburg for loan of this example to show you!

61 Comments

    • I think that is the Speedmaster. However, it predated the Nylon 66 and used wooden furniture.

      https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Remington_Model_552

      First new rifle I ever bought. Neat little shooter. Accurate, handy. Fun. Still have it cause it’s so useful.

      Had a problem with the ejection piece falling out when cleaning but they’re easily available. Or they were.

    • “(…)used a magazine feed instead of a tube feed?”
      If you meant box magazine there existed such derivative of Nylon 66, which was called Nylon 77, see lower half of 1st image from top https://chuckhawks.com/rem_nylon_rifles.htm
      magazines with following capacities were available: 5, 10, it was introduced in 1970.

    • Yes. My brothers and I had one in the 1970s. The box said “Remington Mohawk”. Ten round detachable magazine, plastic, of course. The rifle only weighed 4 pounds, so easy to carry long distances.

      • There was also a dark green overall version of the Nylon 77 very late in production. The one I had consistently failed to feed even with replacement magazines. I suspect QC had slipped by that point.

        It wasn’t long after that that the Nylon 77 line was superseded by the “futuristic” looking 522 “Viper” .22. It didn’t work too well, either.

        clear ether

        eon

  1. 1) Tube feed in the buttstock for .22 semi-autos seemed to have started with — drum roll, please — John M. Browning, for the first ever semi-auto .22, the FN-Browning A22.

    2) I have seen both Remington 66s and the Brazilian copies (by CDC? CBC?) with magazine feed. The slot for the magazine looks incredibly crude, as if cut by a hacksaw.

    3) There was a time, barely ten years ago, when a used “66” could be had for $150 in the midwest USA. It seems collectors have been snapping them up and not shooting them.

    4) I am told they hardly needed cleaning, and that the nylon material was somehow self-lubricating.

    5) The “Apache” model was cast in black. There was also a special run that sold only through — drum roll, please — K-Mart stores! (A Forgotten Retailer …)

  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_shooting#Tom_Frye

    From Wikipedia:

    In 1959, champion Tom Frye of Remington Arms Company broke Ad Topperwein’s aerial shooting record for shooting 2¼ inch cubes of wood thrown into the air. He managed to hit 100,004 of the 100,010 wooden blocks – using several Remington Nylon 66 semi-automatic .22 Long Rifle rifles – over a period of 14 straight days. However although the same size of target was used, the comparison to Topperwein’s record is disputed because of the test conditions. Firstly the shooting was undertaken in distances less than the regulation 30 ft (9.1 m). Secondly Frye’s thrower tossed the target blocks over his shoulder along the line of sight of the gun. In contrast Topperwein’s thrower stood beyond the regulation distance tossing the blocks vertically into the air.[5] In 1963, he had a run of 800 straight clay singles in trap shooting.[6][7]

    • Thanks for the Wiki and the diligence. I remember seeing the Remington ad in an old “Boy’s Life” magazine from that era.

  3. Remington: “In an era where stamped receivers are becoming common, we can make a cheaper plastic rifle that doesn’t need one – buuuut, let’s make one anyway to appease the Fudds!”

    That most complex polymer molding ever seems gratuitous too.

    • This rifle does not have a metal receiver. It has a sheet metal receiver cover over the nylon receiver to satisfy the consumer according to what Ian reported. Ian never mentioned any government regulations concerning the metal receiver cover.

      • I never mentioned any government regulations either. My comment wasn’t meant to be political, but to mock the false economy of substituting cheap plastic for a metal receiver and then producing a steel stamping anyway. I mentioned “Fudds” only in the sense of a preference for metal and [fake in this case] wood.

        I apologize for putting my parody paraphrase in quotes. Ian talked about Remington wanting to save

    • It’s way different to stamp a thin sheet of metal in a simple form, just to cover the plastic, or a thick sheet of metal in a complex form, to be sturdy enough and accomodate all of the internals. The metal cover on the Nylon 66 it’s not welded, it’s not even closed. It only has three faces, screwed on the plastic.

      • a thick sheet of metal in a complex form, to be sturdy enough and accomodate all of the internals

        STEN, MAC, and AR-16 receivers are nothing like that. If you pictured a scale of the engineering challenges required for various guns, would a child’s plinking .22 be higher up (nearer the StG-44) than those, or the opposite?

        • Yes, the Armalite AR-16 receiver is exactly like that. The AR-16 receiver has not lateral flat faces, and it’s closed and welded. To make a receiver with that shape requires several steps. Same for the MAC. The complexity of the Remington piece instead is that of the AKM’s top cover.
          A tubular receiver like that of the STEN was evidently not what Remington wanted (also good luck in pairing it with a tubular magazine into the receiver) Remington wanted a rifle that looked like a sporting rifle, not a plumbing job. You can make a cheap receiver out of an industrial pipe, but then you have also to sell it.

          • The “several steps” you mentioned are routinely, successfully undertaken by untrained hobbyists with Harbor Freight presses and welders. The AR-16 receiver is essentially a square tube, neither thick nor complex. It has some reinforcing ribs because it’s a .308, and would be more than strong enough for .22LR without them. Likewise, given AKM trunnions are riveted or screwed into 1mm receivers, do you really think an inverted-U stamping, screwed to basic trunnion block(s) (far simpler than the pointless detachable barrel mechanism) would be inadequate for .22LR?

            The STEN only looks like a “plumbing job” because of its minimalist stamped stock. The PPS/50 is mechanically a STENish .22 that looks sporting in every respect except its barrel shroud.

          • The fact that a thing can be made by an hobbyist doesn’t mean AT ALL that it’s cheap to make industrially. Quite the contrary infact.
            The AR-16 receiver is NOT “a square tube” It requires several steps in different presses, and then to be welded, to be made.
            .22 LR or not, a receiver made like the one of the Nylon 66 (and Remington wanted their .22 LR carbine to look like the Remington 740, not like a piece of plumbing) requires the internal of the receiver not to be simply hollow. So, if not using a plastic injection, that comes out of the mold already with the right shape, how do you plan to hold all the internal parts without increasing the costs?

          • The fact that a thing can be made by an hobbyist doesn’t mean AT ALL that it’s cheap to make industrially.

            One certainly doesn’t prove the other, true, but none of the examples we’ve been discussing prove the contrary either. Absent NFA considerations, MAC and AKM receivers – the latter in particular far more convoluted than any .22 need be – are dirt cheap.

            how do you plan to hold all the internal parts without increasing the costs?

            I laid out some of the basics already (though I never mentioned anything about not doing an injection molding). Bolt either riding the top of the simplified poly lower, or on rods (familiar from the M3). Similar upper but screwed into a simple front trunnion (could be zinc; it’s a .22) crosspinned into the poly lower / stock.

          • The Nylon 66 receiver also is dirt cheap. They are simply dirt cheap on different scales, and the receiver of the Nylon 66 has the shape Rempigton thought they could sell. It seems the sales confirmed it.

            So, if you are doing an injection molding, why not doing an injection molding with a very simple cover, that’s what Remington did, instead of an injection molding with a less simple metal receiver, that’s what you want to do?
            Note that any hole for the pins, slot to insert the trigger group, any rail, if metal, has to be machined.
            All the components of the receiver of the Nylon 66 are taken toghether with a grand total of two screws.

          • slot to insert the trigger group, any rail, if metal, has to be machined.

            No rails. Is the Glock frame machined (besides the holes)? Looks molded to me.

            Much simpler molding, trunnion simpler than “QC” mechanism, identical cover (bolt on rods).

          • You should simply choose better examples.
            You stated “No rails. Is the Glock frame machined (besides the holes)? Looks molded to me.”
            Now, the Glock HAS RAILS and the working part of the action IS MACHINED, not molded. What’s molded in a Glock is what’s carved out of wood in a M1 Garand.
            A FAR better example would have been the Nylon 66, because the receiver of the Nylon 66 is really molded, but it would have been a quite strange example if your example of an alternative receiver for the Nylon 66 would have been the one of the Nylon 66.
            Now, the Nylon 66 has rails. It has rails for the bolt and for the linear hammer, because, with plastic, you can mold rails accurate enough to not require further machining.
            You instead stated “without rails”. You could have said “without trigger”, or “without barrel”. Tt’s not enough to say it. It has to work. There have to be four perfectly alligned surfaces, up, down, left and right, for the bolt to slide on. How are you planning to obtain those without machining? Also the bolt has to be longer than larger. Preferably much longer, otherwise the rotational forces are too high.

          • Interesting twist on the fallacy. Now instead of debating points I never made, you’re claiming I never wrote things I explained 2-3 comments ago.

            the working part of the [Glock] action IS MACHINED, not molded.

            If that molded FCG housing is machined, it’s a real bargain for $7.50.

            it would have been a quite strange example if your example of an alternative receiver for the Nylon 66 would have been the one of the Nylon 66. <blockquote/) Or a far simpler version of the same with a simple pocket like the (very clearly molded, not machined) one on the KP-15.

        • The internal rails (or slots if you prefer) in the Glock slide ARE machined, and the four metal inserts in the frame that run in those slots are bent in shape and likely stoned to ensure the correct dimensions.
          If you want to implement the same system in a hollow frame you must first shape and bend the metal insert and then fasten it into the frame, screwing, riveting or welding it. All additional processing.
          Do you want to make it of zamac? Ok, compare cap guns made out of plastic and of zamac. What kind costs less? In reality zamac requires a lot of fitting.

          • Now you’re just attacking strawmen, going off on a rail / insert machining process when I clearly stated “no rails”.

            Likewise for “make it of zamac” when I suggested replacing several pointless milled parts with a simpler front trunnion (a ~1″ zinc block with a drilled and tapped hole in it).

          • You should simply choose better examples.
            You stated “No rails. Is the Glock frame machined (besides the holes)? Looks molded to me.”
            Now, the Glock HAS RAILS and the working part of the action IS MACHINED, not molded. What’s molded in a Glock is what’s carved out of wood in a M1 Garand.
            A FAR better example would have been the Nylon 66, because the receiver of the Nylon 66 is really molded, but it would have been a quite strange example if your example of an alternative receiver for the Nylon 66 would have been the one of the Nylon 66.
            Now, the Nylon 66 has rails. It has rails for the bolt and for the linear hammer, because, with plastic, you can mold rails accurate enough to not require further machining.
            You instead stated “without rails”. You could have said “without trigger”, or “without barrel”. Tt’s not enough to say it. It has to work. There have to be four perfectly alligned surfaces, up, down, left and right, for the bolt to slide on, and they have to be sturdy enough to not bent during use, locking the bolt. How are you planning to obtain those without machining? Also the bolt has to be longer than larger. Preferably much longer, otherwise the rotational forces are too high.

  4. I fondly remember shooting my dad’s Nylon 66 as a kid and have been tempted to buy one when they show up at gun shows or auction sites ever since. I recall spilling all our gear, including the Nylon 66, into the Cumberland River in southern Kentucky during a vacation float-fishing-camping trip. The 66 was dried and back in running condition within 24 hours – can’t say the same for the rest of our gear!!

  5. Was there some problem with this video? I saw it put up for early access on Utreon/Playeur 3+ times before it went live and plenty of other videos behind these went live before it.

  6. Can confirm, Nylon 66 shoots sweet like money. That little bugger will deform nickels at 50ft all day.

  7. I love mine, my dad bought it when they first came out, it’s a second year gun. I have like 5 different ones now, one from Brazil

  8. Had one of these with a detachable magazine back IN THE 1970’S. One of the most accurate firearms I’ve ever owned. The plastic magazine catch broke right away but the rifle worked fine regardless.

  9. I always feel aesthetically horrified by a lot of these things like the Remington 66.

    OK, great; you’ve built a rifle around new materials technology. Why the hell do you feel the need to make it look like it was made out of the old materials?

    I get that the market may find the new materials disturbing and all that, but it’s the same thing to me that sees a sort of existential horror at things like people building their homes out of wood and then plastering them with fake rock and stone, in order to make them look like they’re built with those materials. What. Is. The. Point?

    Be honest about your materials; don’t try to copy the old forms, the old patterns. The stocks on these things aren’t wood; why the hell do you feel the need to add in obviously fake woodgrain? Why mimic the design of a solid-receiver traditional weapon, when it obviously… Ain’t?

    I’ve handled and fired a number of these weapons, over the years. They always felt faked-up, cheap copies of the real thing. Even though they kinda weren’t. I think they’d have been much better off if they’d avoided the whole Doric Order school of “new materials made in the pattern of old ones”. It’s nylon, for God’s sake… Design it to take advantage of that fact, and be honest about it. Trying to make the damn thing look like a traditional stocked rifle was an unforced error, in my opinion.

    Not a fan of the entire faux concept when applied to anything. You want brickwork on your house? Build the damn thing out of brick, not chintzy fake brick panels that will look like crap in five years…

    The old timers did this as much as we do, and it never really works out well over the long haul. The original Greek temples built of stone aped the old-school wooden ones to a ridiculous degree, and it took centuries before they really started designing and building with stone to actually look like stone. I’ve been told or read somewhere, that the original early stone temple constructions had columns that were even painted to look as though they were wooden…

    It’s nuts. Be honest with the materials. Please. I’d almost lay you odds that if Remington wasn’t fighting that “cheap-ass copy” syndrome, the Nylon 66 would still be in production to this day. There were some genuinely good ideas with all of that.

    It’s a lot like the old AR-7 survival rifle. That thing looks exactly like what it is: A cheap survival .22. How many times has it been copied and returned to production, again? Who’s felt the need to copy and build more of the Nylon 66?

    • Very true! My least favorite word in any language is “faux” – a fancified version of false, AKA lies. A traditional aesthetic (natural materials looking natural) is good. A Fifties or Eighties aesthetic (synthetic materials made to look futuristic) can be good too. The Seventies aesthetic (particle-board “walnut” and “stone”) – BLECH!

      • It’s also a question of creating problems in the design because you’re trying to ape what was done in the older materials. You can see this all over the place in weapons when you compare/contrast the issues of design when going from machined steel to stampings.

        Different materials/techniques require different design, period. I can certainly understand having issues transitioning to the new materials, and having to feel your way through it all, but… Man, do not do silly things like copy features that are there simply because of limitations created by the old material.

        • You’re right: the pragmatic consequences far outweigh any considerations of taste. It’s important for engineers / designers to recognize that, while their predecessors may not have known everything that moderns do, the ones that stood the test of time did everything for a reason. A QD barrel might make sense for packability (like Eon’s below example of the AR-7), caliber interchangeability, MG heat management, or replacement in the case of barrel-burning magnum cartridges. For a .22 with a one-piece stock that stops a few inches short of the muzzle, it just adds pointless complexity and potential failure points.

    • The AR-7 is a classic example of “It’s so simple and mule-stupid it shouldn’t work”- but that’s exactly why it does. You may notice that other than the top front lip of the box magazine, it has no “feedway” whatsoever, yet it feeds, fires and ejects .22 rimfire ammunition ad infinitum as long as you use RNL bullets.

      As for the whole “floating” thing, the old Charter Arms version with the Styrofoam in the stock may look cheap and nasty, but it will float longer than the gussied-up Henry version with the beautifully-moulded Bauhaus-looking plastic structure inside. That version has air spaces, and air spaces can fill up with…water.

      As I understand it, the AR-7 and the Nylon 66 more-or-less “inspired” each other. The AR-5 bolt-action survival rifle came first, Remington noticed the potential for the concept, the Nylon 66 was produced, and Armalite responded with the AR-7 .22 semiautomatic to hopefully cash in. It must have worked; so far the AR-7 has outlived four manufacturers.

      (Yes, I known Charter Arms is still in business, but they let the AR-7 go thirty years ago.)

      My SWAG is that the AR-7 was conceptually based more on a “stocked pistol” format than any existing “rifle”. In fact, the best way to hold it is almost exactly the way you should address a Mauser C/96 with the stock/holster attached. And like the immortal “Broomhandle”, the AR-7 is designed to be secured in its shoulder stock when not in use.

      clear ether

      eon

    • “(…)stocks on these things aren’t wood(…)why(…)do you feel the need to add in obviously fake woodgrain?(…)”
      Whilst I do not know if this provoked decision, there existed earlier example of wood-mimicry fire-arm furniture, which was used in Stevens 94B single-shot 12 gauge shotgun, according to https://northernrifle.com/stevens-94b/
      shotguns stocked in Tenite, a wood-infused resin, were manufactured after 1948.
      (Tenite itself is older polymer, developed in 1920s)

    • As others pointed out, it was sold also in black and solid green. To have in “faux wood” was a personal choice. Like it was to have your plastic TV, or radio, in a fake wooded grain. Notice that many hunting rifles and shotguns with polymer stocks still have this possibility.
      As for the general shape, it was 1959, and that was the shape a sporting rifle was supposed to have. It’s not you couldn’t obtain different shapes of the stock and handguard with wood also, but that was the one that “solidified”.

  10. hmmmm
    the 66 was certainly different, but was that in a good way?

    different:-

    a combination of material and design that leads to a very flexible structure. that flex is one of the reasons why there are no attachment points for a sling.

    sling the thing and you are inviting it to bend sufficiently to fire without the trigger getting pulled (yes there have been serious injuries and fatalities due to improvised attempts to sling the things – ref; Jack Belk; unsafe by design).

    the 66 is also the only semi auto that I’m aware of that uses an over ride trigger mechanism.

    it’s also one of the few rifles that I’m aware of that uses tension springs.

    General Motors, was also a Dupont business, and following WW2, General motors production engineers were assigned to the project to design guns for Remington that took full advantage of advances in materials and production, to reduce costs.

    they were highly gifted guys, particularly Merle (“Mike”) Walker

    however, there seems to have been a failure to understand that “traditions” are not necessarily “backwards”

    traditions contain and convey the collected knowledge of many people over a long period of time.

    very often, that contained knowledge is not obvious to the observer, nor is it easily articulated.

    In the case of the post war Remington designs, we got at least 3 intrinsically dangerous trigger mechanisms; The “common fire control” for pumps and semi autos.

    The “walker” trigger for the Remington 700 family of bolt action rifles

    and the combination of trigger design and bendy structure in the nylon 66.

  11. I admired the Nylon 66 from afar–never got one because I had other priorities. Thanks Ian, I learned a lot from this video.

    I wonder how much the Nylon 66 influenced acceptance of plastic furniture for the M14 and M16 rifles.

    There were problems. I read of one rifle that had been left on the ledge of a back window swelling up like a ham from sunlight, from the greenhouse effect in a closed car, and becoming in operatable.

    I’m also speculating on why the Nylon 66 didn’t inspire cheap, throwaway submachine guns for use by irregulars.

    Good educational videos will generate new questions.

    • This can be explained. The Nylon 6,6 works fine with the heat that is to be expected in a .22 rifle. But it would not withstand the temperatures that can develop in a submachine gun.
      I wonder if anyone ever managed to kill a Nylon66 gun by overheating?

  12. All you Nylon 66 haters and second-guessers out there: sales numbers over that long of a production run do not lie. The traditional stock layout and light weight facilitates handiness and pointability. The traditional tube magazine in the buttstock is one of the most robust, protected systems available. The “receiver cover” is not just cosmetic: it includes the scope mount, the rear sight, and retains the ejector. It was made in solid green and black, not just fake woodgrain. If you don’t like it, get some krylon or duracoat and take care of it, even the whiteline spacers. The biggest criticism could be the complex reassembly of the fire control group (notice Ian didn’t take that apart…). If Remington offered a new Nylon 66 for sale today under $300 I would line up to buy one.

  13. And it was not exactly PLASTIC. I was sold as NYLON. Slightly different.

    My neighbor who was four years or so older than I had one of these from Sears.

    It rocked.

  14. Remington also made bolt-action single shot, bolt action magazine fed and lever action rifles in the Nylon– series and in brown, black and green. The autoloader was the most common seen and manufactured in the greatest numbers. Also, never forget the original 1963 space age handgun, the X P 100 in the revolutionary .221 Fireball cartridge for varmint hunting.

  15. I remember seeing an, ad… For this, but it was not about it per se; in Guns & Ammo maybe 20 odd years or less no idea.

    Anyway it showed a guy, with a stack of empty cases; thousands and thousands on a indoor range, test lark. The advert suggested; see it worked.

    If only planes etc went through such testing in 2023, he he.

  16. I think you will find that Nylon is a type of plastic (Nylon 6.6). So while not all plastics are nylon, nylon is a type of plastic.

  17. Did Remington make any of these in .22 short for shooting galleries? I dimly recall seeing Nylons in use at the travelling carnivals that were all we had in Wyoming for gallery shooting. (Unless “dim” just means “faux crazy.”) But we were such gun snobs in my family that I probably would’ve sniffed in disdain at a PLASTIC .22.

    My nice low-number Speedmaster weighs 8 lbs. with scope, and that’s a lot for a plinking gun. Still, it’s a handsome piece of steel and walnut. Too bad it’s a takedown — not that I’ll ever take it down and start it on its way to rattling loose and shooting crooked. Hey, I said I’m a gun snob.

Leave a Reply to Malpseand Squibs Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*