The Eugene Stoner Tapes - Part 1: Designing the AR-15

This video is one of many in a series created from an interview conducted by Edward C. Ezell with Eugene Stoner in 1988 at ARES Inc. in Port Clinton, Ohio. All the footage is courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution Archives. All I have done is try to fix the audio and cut some of the waiting time between tapes out. So otherwise, what you are seeing is entirely unadulterated.
Feel free to ask any questions about the various topics of the video in the comments. I will do my best to answer them.
TIMESTAMPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0:00 - Credits
1:25 - How Stoner started working on firearms
3:14 - How Stoner started working at ArmaLite
4:30 - The beginnings of the AR-10
8:10 - Designing for the Army's lightweight rifle program
9:47 - Dutch production of the AR-10
11:44 - General Wyman and the origins of .223
15:56 - Scaling down the AR-10 into the AR-15
18:44 - Ordnance Corps' view of the AR-15
21:55 - Comments on the M14
24:53 - ArmaLite's worries about bias towards the AR-15
26:00 - Rigged tests at Fort Greely in Alaska
30:03 - Strong words from a bird colonel at Fort Greely
32:00 - The "results" of the Alaskan tests
33:24 - The 6mm shell game to delay Stoner until the M14's adoption
36:02 - Comments on contractors being isolated from weapons testing
37:14 - An amusing story about a private at Fort Benning
42:42 - Stoner on the advantages of and reasons behind the .223 cartridge
47:20 - "Emotional" issues in testing between the AR-15 and M14
50:20 - The design of the safety
50:36 - The use of aluminum and various manufacturing techniques in the AR-10/AR-15
53:22 - Stoner discusses his gas system, and how it is not direct impingement like the Ljungman
57:17 - Discussion on the AR's buffer
59:40 - The use of chrome on early bolts and carriers and anodizing on the receivers
1:01:47 - The moving of the charging handle due to issues in the Arctic
The Eugene Stoner Tapes playlist: • The Eugene Stoner Tapes
All footage is used with permission from the Smithsonian Institution Archives.

[@SuperMarshall2009]

Ezell was ahead of his time creating these documentaries and works with Kalishnikov and Stoner. Prior to Forgotten Weapons and the internet, Ezell was doing great work keeping this information alive.

[@MyFabian94]

Gun Jesus and Gun Moses were still Kids/Toddlers in 1988.

[@PotassiumMan]

For sure. There's something awesome about historical preservation at it's core without any assumed bias.

[@bendover6785]

Facts

[@danielcurtis1434]

I strongly disagree!!! People have been “nerding out” with guns since they were invented!!! Also this seems like it wasn’t widely distributed so I don’t see it as quite the same as Forgotten weapons or similar historical firearms channels

[@videodistro]

Daniel.... disagree with what? Your comment doesn't speak to the OP. He never said no one else "nerded out". He said he was ahead of his time in the documenting depth. Your spouting makes no sense. You don't look "smart".

[@ScoutSniper3124]

Eugene Stoner's "Hobby" produced a rifle that has been in the U.S. Military inventory for 60 years and counting. :-)

[@NaturalMagi123]

The mind blowing part is they didn’t even use the rifle he really designed to be our main service weapon lol

[@TriggaTrey361]

@@NaturalMagi123yea they did they made minor changes they do that with most military contract guns

[@YoutubeStenographer-wf6gz]

@@NaturalMagi123 Eugene was closer than kalashnikov who failed at producing a reliable mass produced design with the type 1, he still invented the AK. No doubt schmeisser was involved in designing for production, colt's engineers did the same. Multiple designs of the forward assist and dust cover were ran by eugene stoner for his opinion.

[@mattdirks7896]

This is so cool. I like the casual-ness of his behavior. Like "I designed my own mechanism (receiver), applied lightweight materials, and designed my own projectile..."

[@sqike001ton]

Yea it was interesting how both him and Kalashnikov had this humbleness about them tho I used to believe Kalashnikov being that way was a hold over of communism but stoner was the same way which makes me second guess that

[@leadhead7338]

He really was so genuine, and humbling, Thank you MR. Stoner! AMERICA STRONG STAY FREE LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

[@Crabm38]

@@sqike001ton most actual engineers/technical designers are like that from my experience

[@josephk.4200]

Even today this is relevant and informative. So much false information has been circulated on these subjects.

[@macmorgan6685]

Having spent 4 years in the army from 1965-1969 with the M14 and shooting expert, I can tell you that the target at 300 yards/meters was completely covered by the front sight! The gun was heavy at almost 10lbs!

[@That1_CopDude]

You sir, are an absolute legend for uploading this!! A B S O L U T E L E G E N D 🏆

[@GodisGood584]

absolutely

[@MrGrim-ib4ix]

Stoner was an absolute G

[@S.A.U.1489]

The dogmatic stupidity Stoner had to deal with is astonishing.

[@mikeyjohnson9596]

This makes me want to get an A1 clone from Brownell's to forsake all modern "upgrades". I had similar feelings when Ian and Karl interviewed Jim Sullivan.

[@TheREALLibertyOrDeath]

Carry handles for life!!!

[@literallyshaking8019]

Order one of the “what would stoner do” ARs that Ian from Forgotten Weapons created. I’m sure you’ve heard of it, but if you haven’t they basically took Eugene’s entire philosophy when designing the AR and incorporated a touch of modern features that he would have done had the modern material technology been available back in the 50s-60s. It’s still very much an old school AR.

[@yellowboeing6030]

Wealth of knowledge on display here. Incredibly well spoken. It’s clear Mr Stoner was more than an engineer, also able to navigate government bureaucracy. Always wondered how AR-10 license production ended up with Artillerie-Inrichtingen in Zaandam the Netherlands, the reverse Fokker F-27 license production with Fairchild was the enabler for that deal, fascinating. Never realized Mr Stoner also was responsible for converting the .222 to .223.

[@danielcurtis1434]

Soo soo glad he made these tapes!!! I wish he was still around. It’s sad that only the last few decades we realized the magic of a 1950s design.

[@LRRPFco52]

It's interesting that no firearms designer since has made any real progress or innovation beyond the AR-15 design, when looking at being lighter, more accurate, more ergonomic, and more reliable all-in-one.

[@danielcurtis1434]

@@LRRPFco52 nothing fundamentally new has been made since the 1920s. Nothing game changing has been made since the 60s!!! We’re in a dead period of firearms development like when flintlocks lasted 200 years!!!

[@LRRPFco52]

@@danielcurtis1434 The anodized aircraft-grade aluminum receiver set with barrel extension and gas bypass internal expansion system Stoner devised absolutely was new in the 1950s. The rotating bolt was not. Fiberglass furniture was relatively novel, while Germany had produced phenolic resin-based furniture for some applications. Using the Stoner designs altogether allowed for the lightest weight military service rifle, with the most inherent accuracy potential of any self-loading design, which has not been surpassed since.

[@danielcurtis1434]

@@LRRPFco52 So would you agree since the 60s nothing game changing has happened with small arms??? My definition of “game changing” is a technology so revolutionary that failure to adopt it would mean defeat for any military. Every assault rifle, battle rifle or pistol uses technology that existed in the 1960s. Sometimes they add a new piece or a spin but nothing truly “game changing”. In my mind I see two areas to break this stagnation. One would be new optics calibrated to the round fired so you just shine a laser at the target and the reticle adjusts to the right drop and drift. This already exists and could make a novice a true if not artificial “marksman”. The other more exotic is self guided or correcting bullets. If they can get this done then body armor that doesn’t cover your head is useless. Also any cover no matter how strong is useless!!! These two things would be game changing as militaries would be forced to adopt or die off. There’s nothing about the SCAR or H&K 416 that are remotely game changing. Throwing a piston and and new furniture on an AR concept is getting old!!!

[@LRRPFco52]

@@danielcurtis1434 Yes, nothing game-changing has happened design-wise for the basic service rifle. Optics and ancillary systems have been game-changing, namely Night Vision and Thermal Sight technologies. Small Arms themselves aren't very influential in the outcome of full-scale battles compared to Aviation, ISR, Artillery, long-range fires (missiles), Mobility, Armor, etc. Sniper systems, shoulder-fired anti-armor, and light machineguns are more effective than individual carbines. The next phase for small arms is Integrated Systems, but the DoD and private sector are both failing to structure programs properly to make progress in this area.

[@StrangerOman]

The most mind blowing thing is that I never heard about Edward Ezell or such documentaries before. The time really unravel a lot of hidden treasures. Come to think that these documentaries could have gone lost in time is unsettling. I mean, yes, nothing really new and shocking is discovered if you have read books on the subject, but books and documentaries are different medias that have their own values.

[@kekistanimememan170]

Saw your comment of InrangeTV I’m glad I did.

[@kirkyatras8333]

So did I haha

[@FUnzzies1]

You shouldn't watch inrange.

[@JohnDoe-tx8eu]

@@FUnzzies1 you shouldn't tell people what to do

[@kekistanimememan170]

@@FUnzzies1 why?

[@LUR1FAX]

So many AR-15 myths debunked right here!

[@rcortland]

What a fantastic historical record this is. Thank you for making it available.

[@Chilly_Billy]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people wanted to kill what would become the preeminent military rifle for the next sixty plus years.

[@Yetified_Mayhem]

Same with any tech that is better than mainstream. Tesla and space x come to mind, as well as cheap medicine that works, heating cooling, electricity. They will lobby to stop better or cheaper tech.

[@crisibarra6850]

This man not only invented a rifle. He invented THE rifle.

[@jensenzack9666]

Thank you for uploading. This is great footage.

[@mustafasfleas7342]

THANK YOU MOST KINDLY! This has series of taped interviews has been the best time spent viewing historic video's I've happened upon in... Well, forever!!! Am very much looking forward to the interviews with Mr. Kalashnikov, and including Mr. Stoner!

[@ChoChan776]

ah, junior enlisted: finding ways to skate since before Vietnam.

[@damiangrouse4564]

“Hobby that got out of hand”…thank goodness.

[@ShermanT.Potter]

What's interesting to me, is the charging handle was designed for use with winter gear, but so many people want oversized charging handles in the civilian market.

[@Unboundpuppet]

The reason is the standard rounded tab handles on the civilian market break easily. The retention latch is often pinned extremely close to the edge of the piece of metal. Breaks right off if you aggressively charge the weapon too many times, which isn’t going to render the weapon completely useless right away but it will do so quickly.

[@samesdee4655]

Thank you very kindly for posting this series of interviews!!!

[@MandoWookie]

When they are talking about SALVO proving that rifle combat is actually much closer than what was traditionally trained for, is really frustrating commentary about Army culture and bureaucracy. Because SALVO wasn't when this was discovered. It was in study's post WW1! And Ordnance had done testing with SCHV in the 20s that proved they were actually superior inside that range. But as Stoner said, there was a bias toward the long range ballistics of the larger calibers because of commonality with MGs. But Army culture doesn't actually consider that reality, and then sticks to these overpowered rifles, and just bullshits out reasons why they are the best things ever, to justify why the average troop is trucking around a 10 pound anti-elk rifle that will go through a Buick at 1000 yards, but only ever actually gets used at under 100 yds against underfed enemy conscripts. And they miss because the unnecessary recoil induces flinch and disrupts the sight picture such that they can't get a hurried followed up shot.

[@jonathanyoung2588]

Very well put, my friend.

[@LRRPFco52]

.276 Pedersen was the result of the post-Great War ballistics and cartridge configuration studies. Garand had a lighter .276 rifle with a 10rd en bloc clip, which would have made an even more efficient rifle and saved many US lives during WWII.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

@@LRRPFco52 Except that Congress was in no mood to spend money on the military in 1936. In the National Defense Act of 1920, Congressional committees determined that the minimum manpower for the defense of the US and its territories was around 278,000 Soldiers in the Regular Army. They then promptly cut authorized and funded end strength to less than half that. Adopting the .276 would have required extensive modifications to the M1903, M1917 rifle, M1918 BAR, the M1919 and the M1917A1 MGs to fire that round. Then there were millions of .30 rounds that had been produced after WW1 still in inventory, thanks to mistakes in procurement contracts that didn't allow cancellation or penalties in excess of just finishing the contract. That en bloc clip would have made the same noise as the eight round clip. And the .276 actually had a slightly heaver recoil impulse. The slightly lighter bullet and higher velocity was bought with higher chamber pressure. As far as I know, I cannot identify any Army studies on infantry weapons after WW1 beyond the semi-automatic rifle and later the light rifle program of 1939 which led to the M1 carbine. The one Army that did make a deep study into infantry combat was the Reichswehr, which eventually resulted in the program that produced the MKb42(H) and MKb42(W). The British did a study after WW2 that ended in the EM-2 rifle and the 7x45mm round, which the US Army rejected, as they wanted a full power round, which they wanted to fire on automatic from a 6lbs rifle, which tells you how little the US Army's Infantry Board understood physics and ballistics. The Soviet studies ended in the 7.62x39mm and the AK-47. In 1974-76, the Israelis did a study after unit commanders found their troops discarding their FALs and Uzis for AKs during the 1967 and 1973 wars, which resulted in the Galil.

[@MandoWookie]

​@@michaelsnyder3871 you need to read Hatchers Book of the Garand. Also the .276 didnt have a higher chamber pressure, it was actually lower, as it was pushing a lighter bullet SLOWER than standard 30'06. I think you are confusing it with preWW1 British .276 ENFIELD, which was a much more powerful round. The .276 Garands were lighter, had lighter recoil, and slighlty higher capacity. The US Army also did limited trials in the 20s testing the effectiveness of sub-30 cal rifles using Remington Model 8 semi-autos in .25 Remington. They also did several trials of the effectiveness of semi-auto rifles in the 20s & 30s, to justify why they spent such a relatively large amount on the development of the Garand.

[@GodisGood584]

This is insanely beautiful

[@Astroman1990]

Directed here from InRange. THANK YOU!

[@wouter0388]

Thank you for posting.

[@georgyvazmed4497]

Thanks a lot for sharing!!

[@kirkyatras8333]

This is fantastic!

[@Wasd3r]

Awesome stuff!

[@bbainter7880]

Very illuminating series of interviews. Thanks for posting.

[@DPiercy0069]

These are gold, idk how I'd never heard of these before! Thanks for uploading!

[@tiortedrootsky]

Pure gold! Thank you very much!

[@blackbird_actual]

DUDE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR UPLOADING THESE!

[@sailorbobert]

I love small arms technology. Just found this channel. Gonna have to binge watch all these now. Dope.

[@StrangelyBrownNo1]

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for uploading!

[@berryreading4809]

Thank you for posting this hidden gem 💎 👍

[@katanamaker]

Thank you for getting this, I've been drying to see this since I heard Dugan talk about on a live stream a few years ago.

[@romeosgenericchannel3971]

Thank you for posting these videos I've been watching them for a few days now, amazing to see And hear Eugene Stoner And Mikhail Kalashnikov speaking about their weapons as well as speaking to EACH OTHER, LEGENDARY MEETING! And these tapes are Legendary as well , all great and amazing information to have , glad they taped it when they did ! And again your a LEGEND for SHARING THEM!! Side note, I too, LOVE WAFFLE AND BAKE MAGS!!! Pure LEGEND!

[@victuff9765]

Fantastic! I did not know this series existed, I have a connection to the AR10/15 story albeit small so this is facinating 👍

[@vincentvega3756]

Please tell.

[@EricBishard]

These guys had a pretty good idea of long form content production for the people in the 1980s... Legendary...

[@TheChach]

This man needs a good movie or show about his life.

[@nomad1517]

The guy made a weapon that has both ended and saved millions of lives, if not billions.

[@TheExplosiveGuy]

Definitely not billions, but it has certainly killed and saved a lot of people. Not as much as the AK though, though in its case it's kill to lives saved ratio is probably a _little_ higher than the AR-15.

[@user-di7ds5nk3o]

Thanks !

[@TNRonin]

The furthest we shot at in basic at Benning in 81 was 600 meters.

[@danielcurtis1434]

People forget “small caliber” is a matter of scale. There was a time when .45 bore was “small caliber”. Then in the 1870s-90s the .30 caliber was “small caliber”. So really it’s an arbitrary term.

[@silvermediastudio]

No, it isn't. Small Caliber, in terms of military arms, refers to arms smaller than 20mm. 20 to 60mm are medium caliber. Larger is, large caliber (155mm being about the largest in the current inventory, aside from maritime guns).

[@danielcurtis1434]

@@silvermediastudio You seem confused. I believe your thinking of “small arms” not “small caliber”? See anything under 20mm is generally considered a small arm. However small caliber has changed a lot over the years. And for black powder muzzleloaders .40-.45 would still be relatively small caliber since .32 caliber guns are for squirrels. So as I said it’s rather arbitrary as applied today.

[@silvermediastudio]

@@danielcurtis1434 *Sigh* ...no, I am not. Per the US Army Acquisition Support Center website: Small caliber ammunition is .50 caliber and below. Conventional small caliber ammunition in production and deployment consists of 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, 9 mm, 10- and 12-gauge, .22 caliber, .30 caliber, .38 caliber, .45 caliber, .300 Winchester Magnum (WinMag) and .50 caliber. The 5.56 mm cartridge is used in the M16 Rifle, M4 Carbine and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. The 7.62 mm cartridge is used in the M240 Machine Gun, M24 Sniper Weapon System, M110 Semi-automatic Sniper System and the M14 Rifle. The 9 mm cartridge is fired in the M9, M17 and M18 Pistols. The M2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle uses the .300 WinMag cartridge. The M2 Machine Gun and the M107 Sniper Rifle use .50 caliber cartridges. The remaining small caliber ammunition is used in a variety of pistols, rifles and shotguns. Medium Caliber Ammunition (MCA) includes 20 mm, 25 mm, 30 mm, and 40 mm Armor-Piercing (AP), High-Explosive (HE), smoke, illumination, training, and antipersonnel cartridges with the capability to defeat light armor, materiel, and personnel targets. These munitions provide overwhelming lethality in MCA and point- and area-target engagement via medium handheld, crew-served, ground platform and aircraft mounted weapons. Large Caliber includes 120 mm, 105 mm, and 50 mm direct fire ammunition. Platforms supported include the Abrams Tank, Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS), the emerging Next Generation Combat Vehicles - Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), and Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF).

[@Maulzy23]

This is awesome

[@aklaunch]

Thank you

[@melc311]

The people that complain about the .223 and other small rifle calibers like to greatly overestimate the typical engagement distance.

[@danielmccoy8875]

Stoner was a genius, but dont forget Melvin Johnson ,the inventor of the Johnson Rifle,which the bolt and carrier came from

[@jacklynch3333]

Stoner 63. Iconic.

[@stamp6763]

Eugene Stoner was a such a cool guy

[@TheExplosiveGuy]

Wow, this was filmed exactly two weeks after my birth, that's kind of cool. Eugene was an amazing man, he left behind an incredible legacy and inspired thousands of gun designers and engineers.

[@animal0mother]

All of the fuck-fuck games around testing make for quite the drama. This could be a miniseries.

[@benwinter2420]

Probably one of the most informative series of interviews on the premier designer of the nuts & bolts side of things , AR to Bushmaster 6425 cannon used to hear banging away in background firing range Darwin NT Oz , the Bushmaster & AR being used to lethal effect Ukraine . . his LMG genius & on face better than anything around including PKM

[@nomad1517]

I love how unscripted this is. It shows that he's human being. Not a god that Hollywood loves to create.

[@5jjt]

Hollywood's main job is to invent and provide replacement gods because we have a real God that they want to distract us from. If you notice, the "Overcomers" are what enables the Lord to come back. Overcomers overcome all distractions of all kinds and live solely to God, being totally obedient to His voice. God can live inside of us and us in Him, being in oneness, in spirit. He makes us like Him. Hollywood is out to stop this, or at least, delay it because once there's enough overcomers, the Lord comes back and the enemies' time is up.

[@silvermediastudio]

Would be interesting to see a follow-up with Reed Knight, Paul Leitner-Wise, and Kevin Brittingham.

[@richardlawton1023]

Thanks

[@toddbarboza425]

Semper fi. Mr Stoner

[@5jjt]

Why did they ask Stoner to make a 6mm if they never intended for one? Why use a 6mm Red Herring if Eugene was fine with the .223?

[@martintrammell6481]

To redirect his efforts and put the project further behind! Again direct attempts at sabotage by army people!!!

[@LRRPFco52]

There were engineers in the Ordnance Board who wanted to use the .25 Remington case, so the rifle and magazines would require a total redesign and slightly scaled-up. It was designed to stall and distract Stoner's efforts, but would have been a great Sharpshooter and Assault Rifle cartridge. You wouldn't have been able to carry as many rounds for the same weight though, but terminal performance would have been marginally-better.

[@six-pack1332]

Father of the M-16.

[@user-me3hs3cb8i]

I find it hard to believe both men weren't extremely familiar with the other man's design. Would like to see if John Browning wouldn't feel there was some patent infringment of his Remington Model 18, Same big safety lever on the side close on trigger parts. Rotating bolt converted to piston rather than long recoil.

[@burtdanams4426]

That story about the commander of the base attacking him and his weapon design is wild man. What a clown lmao how could you say that about America's rifle

[@maxpower6765]

A hobby that got out of hand. 🤣😝🤣 ❤️

[@danielcurtis1434]

If they necked the .223 to 6-7mm it would be absolutely perfect!!! Especially a 6.5 with a 100 grain bullet and 120 grain match sniper ammo would have .308 external ballistics and more penetration

[@DroppingBombs4ever]

Ask Forgotten weapons this question ⁉️What year did the US Government stop allowing military personnel from bringing their own Firearms to WAR? Ex, American Revolution, Some Muskets and Rifles were Purchased by the soldier not the Government or Military. Civil WAR, Henry Repeating Rifles were used in the American Civil WAR and Soldiers purchased them with their own money to be used as their service rifle. Great to know for the 4th of July

[@My-Name-Isnt-Important]

The AR-10 is such a superior design compared to the M-14. You can fire the AR-10 accurately on full auto, it's not great but it's far better than other battle rifles. The Portuguese loved the AR-10 during their actions in Africa, and proved to be an excellent rifle. The AR-15 is just the natural evolution of the AR-10.

[@benwinter2420]

I recall the Australian so called defence forces trials of the AR rifles with their direct impingement system for possible adoption . . they found the grips & entire receiver became too hot to hold with prolonged full auto fire (apparently rectified since ? ) & instead went with the bullpup Steyr;s & later indigenous varient the F90

[@thatcampingmann9543]

The aug over exceeded their expectations in the trials they put them through vs the m16a2 I believe it was also adopted by the Irish too The barrel supposedly lasted longer (stayed more accurate after 10k rounds) and a couple other accuracy and quality things too made it their pick

[@williamlloyd3769]

At time 42 min of the interview, you can listen to the origins of the InRange mud test.

[@robocuip9388]

They should make a movie of him

[@Largecanyondog]

A gentleman that looks nothing like a stoner 😇

[@jasonpatel6562]

24:00

[@TonyTheGoon]

37:21 💨

[@louadams4942]

The private wasn’t stupid he was a genius Think about he did nothing and he got lemon aid juice And help designed the weapon and didn’t even know it

[@damiangrouse4564]

I recommend to those that are not aware of them: the book “Boyd”, the book “the pentagon wars” and the movie based on the the book. After analyzing these you may experience the full gamut of emotions.

[@alexanderelkorek]

Watching Mr Stoner stroke his fingers across the forend while listening to the sex appeal factor feedback of the ar15 is... interesting?

[@JohnnysSidebar]

If the military rigs rifle trials…just think what some may have done on Nov 22,1963 and the autopsy on Nov 23, 1963. Bad apples 🍎 are everywhere, including the military. The AR-15 is probably the best semiautomatic rifle ever built.

[@Zachary77]

Just goes to show that "politics" destroys everything it touches.

[@Jonsoar]

Smart man but soo painfully dull. Like many engineers. Ugh.

[@austinthompson5648]

This interview took place on my birthday April 19 13 year before my birth isn't that weird.🙃

[@JohnDoe-tx8eu]

Whats your address and social security number while you're telling us your life story

[@TheExplosiveGuy]

This interview was exactly two weeks after my birthday, it was interesting seeing my birth month and year on that intro lol. Yay for April babies!🤣

[@imreszabo6075]

I am going to have to disagree with Eugene Stoner. A controllable large caliber select fire replacement for both a rifle and light machine gun was doable many years before he designed the AR-10: the FG 42. While it did weigh in at 9.3 lbs (lots of heavy steal stampings), because of its design, the FG 42 did not feel as heavy as a typical 9.3 lbs rifle to shoulder. It was chambered for the 7.92x57 Mauser, which is slightly more power than the 7.62x51 NATO (about 18% more momentum). There is no reason why the FG 42 couldn't have been redesigned to less than 8 lbs for 7.62x51 NATO using 1960s technology.

[@gabemando7823]

The FG42 had its own set of problems and it wasn’t all that durable in the long run. The design did live on in the form of the M60, which turned out to be less ideal than its alternatives.

[@imreszabo6075]

@@gabemando7823 Nice try. The FG 42 was a rushed wartime design made in rushed wartime conditions. It is very impressive accomplishment considering. Redesigned and manufacture without the wartime constraints it would be a very impressive weapon. I find it very amusing that people love to slam the FG 42 because of its influence on the M60, considering just how disastrously poor the US Army small arms development has been for many decades before and since... Even John Browning was so infuriated dealing with the US military he left the US and went to Europe. Eugene Stoner was NOT the first designer to be screwed over by the US military. I would love to see an AR-10 redesigned in an FG 42 format.

[@LRRPFco52]

AR-10 is more reliable than the FG-42, and the AR-15 is more reliable than the AR-10, always has been. Jim Sullivan said the AR-10 was never as reliable as the -15 for some reason they couldn't quite nail down. But saddling Infantry soldiers with 7.92x57 or 7.62x51 rifles is a stupid and self-defeating move by people who refuse to study history.

[@Hibernicus1968]

The FG-42 is controllable enough in full auto fire from the bipod, when stepping into the light machine gun role -- though that's a role it can't fill for very long because of the light, non-quick change barrel. Fired from the shoulder, it won't be _nearly_ as controllable in full auto as an M16. The whole point of an assault rifle is to replace both the infantry battle rifle, and the submachine gun, and a select fire rifle firing a full power battle rifle cartridge cannot do this. Also, because of the way the operating system works, an FG-42 will never touch the AR-10 or AR-15 in accuracy. The reason is the way that the rifle achieves one of the goals the Luftwaffe laid down for it: firing from an open bolt on full auto, and a closed bolt on semi. The sear engages the operating rod, which has two notches for sear engagement. On full auto, the sear engages the forward notch, holding the op rod and bolt to the rear. On semi, the sear engages the rear notch, holding the bolt fully forward, closed and locked, and the op rod (which is connected to the firing pin) _almost_ fully forward. When you press the trigger, the sear drops to allow the firing pin, and the entire op rod to move forward a fraction of an inch. That's _many times_ the mass of an AR-10's or AR-15's hammer moving forward, and this is going to disturb the shooter's aim somewhat -- not enough to be a problem in a combat rifle for the regular soldier; it will be plenty accurate for that, but it means you won't ever be able to make the FG-42 into a precision rifle the way you can with the AR. You also won't ever be able to give nearly as good a trigger either.

[@ShaunSavage-kl9pd]

I like the Soviet ak47 way better. M16 and m4 got a lot of my marines killed. All of there rifles were jammed. Being a corpsman was tough. I wouldn't take a free m16

[@martintrammell6481]

That ft Greely post cdr should have been referred to GEN Wyman for any questions concerning the round development!!! And the infantry board since they were the ones that wanted the small caliber anyway!!! And Mr. Stoner should have thrown all of them under the bus at the congressional hearing!!!

[@stefanmolnapor910]

Thank you