Stoner 63- most controlable Full auto rifle ?

[montana]

I have never shot a Stoner 63 but watching this video I can tell it is a lot more controllable than the M-16 on full auto, "amazing".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF0aPSyUMjk

Yes I do know non human shooter J.M. is shooting it but look at the lack of muzzle rise.

[stanc]

With Miculek doing the shooting, I don't know how much can be concluded about relative controllability. He makes EVERYTHING look controllable...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlK_HoJOvcA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew8by3er4FM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCmHxieQduE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyIq9FdTgwM

[montana]

I agree, he may not be the best person to compare muzzle rise since he comes from another planet of super humans but it still looks like the Stoner 63 has a very smooth recoil impulse compared to the other firearms. I have never shot a Stoner 63 and would like to know if anyone has had any experience with this weapon platform.

[lrgrendel]

They are some awsome videos!

[LRRPF52]

Stoner 63 has constant recoil. This is where Jim Sullivan got his inspiration to make the Ultimax 100. Jim Sullivan was also involved with the design of the Stoner 63, since it was derived from the Stoner 62 7.62 NATO weapon system, just like Sullivan scaled down the AR10 to make the AR15 with Robert Fremont at ArmaLite Inc.

The original assault rifle has constant recoil as well. It's one of the most overlooked operating systems in firearms design. We're still in a stagnant era of firearms design, basically plateaued from the late 1950's and early 1960's. This seems to be a common theme across all disciplines. Every half century, a genius innovator comes along and takes the collective work before them, and synthesizes it into something greater than the sum of the parts.

Browning was that way, Schmeisser & Walther certainly advanced design and production efficiency, and Stoner took firearms design and manufacturing into the aerospace-grade materials arena, with some other unique designs for the operating system, multi-lug bolt, DI gas, bakelite & carbon fiber furniture, aircraft aluminum receivers, etc.

Jim Sullivan argues that the AR15 still has residual issues that he has been addressing for a while, to include buffering it to reduce the cyclic rate for FA guns, extending the gas key, elongating the cam pin path (LMT has done this with the enhanced carrier), increasing bolt lug thickness & length, increasing the barrel extension teeth length, installing a hammer-effect in the carrier, etc.

[LRRPF52]

https://www.full30.com/video/9b50f8a825ab510b4c227c7b32a76bc1

[stanc]

https://www.full30.com/video/9b50f8a...227c7b32a76bc1

Interesting. I gotta say, in the comparison shooting, it looked to me like the ArmWest M4 was kicking much harder and the muzzle jumping around a lot more than did the standard M4. Just the opposite of what the two shooters were claiming.

As for controllability in one-handed full-auto...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqmWEWgxL9c

[montana]

Stoner 63 has constant recoil. This is where Jim Sullivan got his inspiration to make the Ultimax 100. Jim Sullivan was also involved with the design of the Stoner 63, since it was derived from the Stoner 62 7.62 NATO weapon system, just like Sullivan scaled down the AR10 to make the AR15 with Robert Fremont at ArmaLite Inc.

The original assault rifle has constant recoil as well. It's one of the most overlooked operating systems in firearms design. We're still in a stagnant era of firearms design, basically plateaued from the late 1950's and early 1960's. This seems to be a common theme across all disciplines. Every half century, a genius innovator comes along and takes the collective work before them, and synthesizes it into something greater than the sum of the parts.

Browning was that way, Schmeisser & Walther certainly advanced design and production efficiency, and Stoner took firearms design and manufacturing into the aerospace-grade materials arena, with some other unique designs for the operating system, multi-lug bolt, DI gas, bakelite & carbon fiber furniture, aircraft aluminum receivers, etc.

Jim Sullivan argues that the AR15 still has residual issues that he has been addressing for a while, to include buffering it to reduce the cyclic rate for FA guns, extending the gas key, elongating the cam pin path (LMT has done this with the enhanced carrier), increasing bolt lug thickness & length, increasing the barrel extension teeth length, installing a hammer-effect in the carrier, etc.

I have shot a lot of full auto and the Stoner 63 looked very impressive to me. Videos can sometimes be deceiving but I had no idea the Stoner 63 was constant recoil till I watched JM shooting it and suspected as such. The interview with Jim Sullivan was a great find. Why the military has not broken down his door to get his design knowledge years ago is a complete mystery to me. Great find, thanks a million.

[montana]

Interesting. I gotta say, in the comparison shooting, it looked to me like the ArmWest M4 was kicking much harder and the muzzle jumping around a lot more than did the standard M4. Just the opposite of what the two shooters were claiming.

As for controllability in one-handed full-auto...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqmWEWgxL9c

I would have to respectfully agree to dis-agree with you on this one stanc. If you could ever get to Montana I would let you try shooting a standard full auto M-4 with one hand and see if you think it was controllable. I was very impressed with Sullivan's modified full auto especially firing from an open bolt. The firing impulse looked very controllable. Like you commented before, the shooter can make all the difference in perception.

[Nukes]

I am unfamiliar with the term "constant recoil." Perhaps someone can edify me in this regard.

[montana]

I am unfamiliar with the term "constant recoil." Perhaps someone can edify me in this regard.

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=108

Scroll down to about the middle and Sullivan can explain it better than I can.

[LRRPF52]

We've never had the full capabilities of the Sturmgewehr in an assault rifle or US production LMG, unless you include the Stoner 63. Even the Squeals could hit their targets with that system.

[stanc]

I would have to respectfully agree to dis-agree with you on this one stanc. If you could ever get to Montana I would let you try shooting a standard full auto M-4 with one hand and see if you think it was controllable.

I wish I could take you up on that offer. However, even if I could, it wouldn't settle anything in the context of my previous post, unless I could also shoot the ArmWest M4 for comparison.

I was very impressed with Sullivan's modified full auto especially firing from an open bolt. The firing impulse looked very controllable.

I didn't say that it looked uncontrollable. I said that it appeared to kick harder and be less controllable to the standard M4.

Like you commented before, the shooter can make all the difference in perception.

Of course it can. The nice thing about the In Range video is that it showed two individuals firing both weapons in the same manner from the shoulder, which eliminates one variable in the comparison.

However, the guy in the In Range video who shot Sullivan's M4 one-handed, did not do the same with the standard M4, so I had no choice but to look for a video of someone else doing the same stunt with an M4. And in the video I posted, controllability in one-handed firing looks relatively the same compared to the one-handed shooting of the ArmWest M4, as did the shoulder firing of both guns, i.e., more controllable, less recoil.

[stanc]

We've never had the full capabilities of the Sturmgewehr in an assault rifle...

What do you mean? What capabilities?

[LRRPF52]

What do you mean? What capabilities?

Constant recoil. You can take an entry level soldier with no trigger time, and have him making controlled bursts on target with almost no training, other than how to cycle the gun, feed it, basic manual of arms. To be able to drive an assault rifle normally takes a lot of trigger time and seasoned technique, that isn't even known by 95% of combat arms guys.

Jim Sullivan has worked on a number of design changes to the AR15 to make it as close to constant recoil as possible. The MGI RRB is dang close, especially on a MLGS carbine. It has sprung buffer weights inside.