What if the AR15 had not been created?

[stanc]

Would the 6.5 Grendel cartridge never have been developed?

(This question was prompted by a comment in http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...#post15810)

The modern small-caliber, high-velocity cartridge concept was not initiated by Gene Stoner. Indeed, earlier work was done by Davis and Gustafson at Aberdeen's Small Arms Section, where during 1952-53 they modified and tested an M2 carbine to fire the .22 Gustafson (a cartridge they also developed, and which had dimensions similar to the .221 Fireball).




A few years later, Springfield Armory teamed with Remington Arms to make the .224 Springfield cartridge. Earle Harvey adapted his T25 rifle to fire the .224 round.




In the same time period, Winchester also developed a .224 cartridge and rifle.



(L to r): .222 Rem, .224 Springfield, .222 Rem Mag, .222 Special, .223 Rem, .224 Win, 5.56x45.


So, when the call eventually came for a lightweight SCHV rifle to arm the diminutive ARVN soldiers, options would have been available even if the AR15 had not. I think that would inevitably have led to the same type rifle being used by US troops, and eventually to the same perceived deficiencies that spurred development of 6.5 Grendel.

We might not have an AR15, but we'd likely still have 6.5 Grendel.

[sneaky one]

The 7.62 x 39 AK round,, and the piston driven rifle,, would probably have ruled the planet-every country-household-bunker etc.,, even way more than ever imagined. Oh, then the 5.45 rnd. would be the mid. class AK round, for a while-, then someone in England would have a wild idea- to amp up the lite-mid class a bit-- I'm sure someone would lean towards a 6.5 Grr. idea eventually., hee. Good to have a better selection now , way more than 15 yrs. ago. The newest .30 cal. class looks good too. A 7mm unit would be nice addition to the lineup.

[stanc]

Good to have a better selection now , way more than 15 yrs. ago. The newest .30 cal. class looks good too. A 7mm unit would be nice addition to the lineup.

They say variety is the spice of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What you have in mind for a 7mm?

Personally, I wonder if we couldn't have got along just fine if cartridge development had stopped after 7.62 NATO... :confused:

30,000 rounds. Eat that, AR15!!! :p

[LRRPF52]

A lot of the design features of the AR15 had already been pursued and fielded by the Germans, especially in-line rifles with segmented or tubular metallic receivers of unorthodox manufacture and non-traditional design layouts like the FG42 and the MP44. If you look at the AR's recoil spring, ejection port cover, mag release, & other ergonomic interface features, they bear direct lineage to the MP44/Stg44, although I really like the Stg44's charge handle arrangement the best.

The M14 was a step backwards and away from the direction the Germans had steered small arms development in both rifle layout and the intermediate cartridge concept. Things like steel receivers bolted to wooden stocks with traditional grips blended into the comb can be traced back to early experimenters who strapped pipes to a piece of wood, packed it with black powder, and lit it manually.

If any of the weapons tested during the 1955 service rifle trials, the AR10 should have been the one, but the baboons running the tests couldn't recognize genius when they saw it, and worked hard to sabotage the AR10 in Stoner's absence. It still out-shot the T44 (later became M14), but Not Invented Here Syndrome ruled the day.

Having used several variations of the M14 in the field, overseas, and in competition, and comparing it to the weight, balance, and handling of the original AR10, the AR10 stands in a class of its own. You have to get your hands on one and enjoy it for a while, they are great rifles in original form.

A 7mm-08 AR10 would make a sick Infantry rifle in that era, but it would still suffer from the soldier's load limitations, which were made obvious in modern, maneuver warfare.

[stanc]

Having used several variations of the M14 in the field, overseas, and in competition, and comparing it to the weight, balance, and handling of the original AR10, the AR10 stands in a class of its own. You have to get your hands on one and enjoy it for a while, they are great rifles in original form.

Never having had an AR10 in my hot little hands, I can't render an opinion. I only know I've had two AR15s, one a 20" barrel rifle w/A2 stock, the other a 16" carbine w/telescoping stock.

I overwhelmingly preferred the fit, feel, balance and handling of my M1A w/E2 stock.

[LRRPF52]

Here are some M14 pics you might enjoy...I'll have to scan my ones from Korea as well and get them up. These are my buddy who was one of the snipers in my Battalion for OIF1, but on his 2nd Deployment to OIF with 2nd ID. He said it was night and day difference in deployments, with the 2nd one being a daily fight for their lives basically.

Notice that in the first pic, he has an Italian BM59 paratrooper stock with his M14 dropped into it. You won't see any more pics of that configuration, I would bet. 2nd and 3rd pics are of the EBR, with its behemoth stock...way too much weight in that one.

[stanc]

Thanks, I did enjoy those pics. That BM59 paratrooper stock is different than the one I saw years ago.

I agree the EBR is way too heavy. It even looks awkward. Can't imagine anybody wanting to tote one.

BTW, is that you with the 203 in the top pic?

[LRRPF52]

Thanks, I did enjoy those pics. That BM59 paratrooper stock is different than the one I saw years ago.

I agree the EBR is way too heavy. It even looks awkward. Can't imagine anybody wanting to tote one.

BTW, is that you with the 203 in the top pic?

Nope, I was out already by then. My buddy with the M14 in the pics has done at least 5 OIF and OEF deployments now.

[ofreen]

Would the 6.5 Grendel cartridge never have been developed?
(snip)
We might not have an AR15, but we'd likely still have 6.5 Grendel.

Maybe, maybe not. There might be a cartridge similar to the Grendel developed in response to the perceived weaknesses of the .224 projectile, but the Grendel is designed around the limitations of the AR15 package. A different rifle might not have the same limitations, allowing a cartridge with a little more snoose, whether through higher pressure or a little larger case capacity.

The thing the AR15 has that makes it somewhat unique is its modularity. Anybody with a modicum of mechanical ability, a special tool or two, and a credit card can put one together on their kitchen table. You can't say that about the M14. This aspect has probably kept the Grendel afloat up until now as much as any particular characteristic of the cartridge.

[stanc]

Maybe, maybe not. There might be a cartridge similar to the Grendel developed in response to the perceived weaknesses of the .224 projectile, but the Grendel is designed around the limitations of the AR15 package. A different rifle might not have the same limitations, allowing a cartridge with a little more snoose, whether through higher pressure or a little larger case capacity.

That's sorta nitpicking. The .224 Springfield cartridge is a hair longer than .223 Remington, but it has the same case diameter. So, an alternate history "6.5 Grendel" undoubtedly wouldn't be exactly like the present one, but for all practical purposes it'd be the same cartridge.

The thing the AR15 has that makes it somewhat unique is its modularity. Anybody with a modicum of mechanical ability, a special tool or two, and a credit card can put one together on their kitchen table. You can't say that about the M14.

Excellent point. That also applies to small gun companies like AA. Chances are, Bill Alexander would not have started a business to market .50 Beowulf M14 or T25 clones, which are more complex and difficult to manufacture. If there had been no .50 Beowulf, there would likely have also been no 6.5 Grendel.

It does appear that 6.5 Grendel's existence is directly and inextricably (Always wanted to use that word! ) dependent on creation of the AR15.

[ofreen]

That's sorta nitpicking. The .224 Springfield cartridge is a hair longer than .223 Remington, but it has the same case diameter. So, an alternate history "6.5 Grendel" undoubtedly wouldn't be exactly like the present one, but for all practical purposes it'd be the same cartridge.

Excellent point. That also applies to small gun companies like AA. Chances are, Bill Alexander would not have started a business to market .50 Beowulf M14 or T25 clones, which are more complex and difficult to manufacture. If there had been no .50 Beowulf, there would likely have also been no 6.5 Grendel.

It does appear that 6.5 Grendel's existence is directly and inextricably (Always wanted to use that word! ) dependent on creation of the AR15.

I wasn't trying to nitpick as I knew what you were saying. What I was getting at was the limitations put on the cartridge were because of trying to make it work in the AR15. Another rifle design might lead to a 6.5 cartridge with some different characteristics.

Another thing that make the the AR and the Grendel a good fit with each other is the inherent accuracy the AR design is capable of without a lot expense and dinking around. I predict if Ruger brings out a "Mini-Grendel", the AR Grendels with still outsell it by a large margin because people drawn to the Grendel are also interested in accuracy.

[pinzgauer]

I predict if Ruger brings out a "Mini-Grendel", the AR Grendels with still outsell it by a large margin because people drawn to the Grendel are also interested in accuracy.

I'd sure want a different barrel profile & better sights on the mini. But I'd buy a mini-grendel if offered in GB config in stainless. I love the AR's, and begrudgingly admit their probably superiority, but still like shooting mini's for fun and certain situations.

my read: Grendel (and 6.8, 300 AAC, and every other variant) was directly enabled by AR-15 modularity. They would not have developed if real smith work was required to trade barrels, etc. It's the SWAG factor. (Stoner Was A Genius)

The M1 carbine was very prolific, yet the spitfire mod and variants just did not catch on. Too hard to swap out. How many .270 or .280 Garands? Same deal. If it was as easy to change barrels on the Garands I'd have had a .280 one.

[stanc]

Was Stoner really a genius? Maxim, certainly. Maxim started at "ground zero" in the field of repeating weapons, and he alone developed most of the principles of design and operation which are still used today.

But, what Stoner did was to copy features of several previous weapons and incorporate them into the AR design. I give Stoner credit for first-class engineering ability, but to my mind a "genius" comes up with something original, he doesn't just rearrange what's already been done by others.

[ofreen]

I love the AR's, and begrudgingly admit their probably superiority, but still like shooting mini's for fun and certain situations.

No question, Mini-14s are a hoot to shoot.

[LRRPF52]

Was Stoner really a genius? Maxim, certainly. Maxim started at "ground zero" in the field of repeating weapons, and he alone developed most of the principles of design and operation which are still used today.

But, what Stoner did was to copy features of several previous weapons and incorporate them into the AR design. I give Stoner credit for first-class engineering ability, but to my mind a "genius" comes up with something original, he doesn't just rearrange what's already been done by others.

When you assemble an AR15, you will see how genius Stoner really was. Every design is inspired by others, except for most of Nikola Tesla's 900 electrical patents. The AK still uses Browning's safety lever from the Remington Model 8, among other things. The Stoner system introduced many engineering elements from aircraft manufacturing, and the most efficient method for attaching the barrel to the receiver with the lowest weight materials used. Stoner really was more involved with the AR10, while John Sullivan and others scaled it down and worked out the unique issues for the AR15.

The original AR10 is one of the handiest, lightest, low-recoiling rifles I've ever had the opportunity to shoot and run around with, and is a testament to Stoner's clean slate approach in many regards. That it out-performed against the FAL and T44 after being criminally sabotaged by Army Ordnance Corps just seals the deal even further as to its superior design.

[pinzgauer]

But, what Stoner did was to copy features of several previous weapons and incorporate them into the AR design. I give Stoner credit for first-class engineering ability, but to my mind a "genius" comes up with something original, he doesn't just rearrange what's already been done by others.

The Stoner genius was that he designed a rifle that can be assembled into a reliable, light, strong performing rifle with zero hand fitting. Out of a box of random parts. And is comparatively accurate out of the box. And has a minimal parts count. With great ergonomics. That is easy for untrained people to shoot to military standards.

For years I did not get it. Until I built them myself, and really understood how they go together. How all the critical tolerances are managed at mfg rather than by hand fitting. (Barrel extension as the sole exception).

Appreciation of direct impingement vs alternatives took longer to understand. And again, took some experience with cleaning (or not) AR bolts, carriers, etc. And I realize that much of the maligned rep of the AR comes from US military "white glove" inspection traditions. Which has now been measurably documented to create malfs, increase wear, and shorten service life.

There are other designs I also like. But to me and others, Stoner was a genius. Maybe not as vaunted as John Browning, but he's up there in the top 5-10 firearms designers.

[stanc]

The Stoner genius was that he designed a rifle that can be assembled into a reliable, light, strong performing rifle with zero hand fitting. Out of a box of random parts. And is comparatively accurate out of the box. And has a minimal parts count.

Sorry, but all that is just top notch engineering, in my book. Plus, considering that almost everything about Stoner's design had been done before, I find it difficult to classify it as genius.

- Straight-line stock
- Buffer tube
- Pistol grip
- Bolt carrier
- Multi-lug rotating bolt
- Direct impingement gas system
- Hinged upper and lower receivers
- Plastic furniture

All of these were used in weapons that preceded the AR.

With great ergonomics.

Honestly, I don't see what's so great about AR ergonomics.

The original charging handle could be grasped by only one finger. The standard T-handle isn't much better, and is located where leverage is poor. On many other designs, the charging handle is large enough to be grabbed with the palm, not just a finger or two, and usually located where leverage is greater.

And insofar as balance and handling are concerned, I rate this as superior:
[video=youtube;N06ySsT2EKU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU[/video]

That is easy for untrained people to shoot to military standards.

Ya mean, like this?
[video=youtube;ltsYULIT9I4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltsYULIT9I4[/video]

[pinzgauer]

So by your measure, if you did not invent those items it's not genius. That bumps out some familiar names...

Who do you consider genius?

It seems like all roads Stan lead back to the M14. Which is ironic, given its one of the least used MBR's of the last few decades.

[LRRPF52]

That M14A1 has a muzzle break to help keep it controllable on AUTO, which is a non-starter for any 7.62 battle rifle fed from a 20rd mag for a sustained fire role. Also, the M14A1 was meant to be an automatic rifleman's weapon, and failed miserably at that due to mag capacity limitations, and barrel heating. A .625" fore-end barrel ain't gonna cut the mustard for sustained full auto. The M14's receiver is a dirt and debris funnel that ends in the magazine as well, so in sandy environments, it becomes a dirt suck magnet, with malf's fairly common, but we already knew this from the 1955 trials...

Nice comparison of a 240lb shooter leaning into the muzzle-breaked M14A1 with a 120lb kid shooting the AR10 without a muzzle brake and not using the modern technique to drive the gun. Still, notice how small the AR10 looks even in a kid's hands.

Stoner's genius is evidenced in several areas:

Use of aircraft-grade aluminum for the receiver
Barrel extension fit into Aluminum receivers
Overall lightweight never achieved before in that caliber class
Fitting of receivers together
Mild recoil impulse in a lightweight auto-loading rifle
Excellent ergonomics and ease of user interface for common controls
Inherent accuracy

The ergos of the AR are currently being copied by makers of shotguns, numerous other assault rifle designs, and even bolt guns. The AR is still the easiest and fastest platform to change mags with, actuate the selector with using your firing hand, index the sights with, and it balances better than any other assault rifle I have used, save maybe the AUG (which has polymer fire control parts).

I'll be the first to admit that the charge handle design is nowhere near optimum, but I still don't like side-chargers on the right side of the weapon. The most convenient charge handle design is on the Sturmgewehr grandaddy of assault rifles, and the Belgian FAL. The original AR10 and AR15 "trigger" charge handles were a nice attempt at one of the first ambidextrous designs, but were too hot to handle after high-volume sessions, and almost impossible to use with winter mittens. It is very difficult to find a more ergonomic charge handle for the AR, and still keep the receiver closed to help keep out debris.

For me and those who run the guns on a regular basis, the AR charge handle isn't an issue. I use the BCM Gunfighter handles on my AR's, and they come in 3 different handle lengths for your preferences. If one wants, there are several left and right-side chargers to choose from for the AR.

[stanc]

So by your measure, if you did not invent those items it's not genius.

Precisely. Why would you consider it "genius" to copy what somebody else has done?

That bumps out some familiar names...

Yeah, I reckon it does.

Who do you consider genius?

Those who create something original, that nobody else did before.

For some examples, the guys who invented:

- Gunpowder
- The first gun
- The percussion cap
- The pointed bullet
- The metallic cartridge
- The first machine gun

It seems like all roads Stan lead back to the M14. Which is ironic, given its one of the least used MBR's of the last few decades.

Don't try to make it sound as if I'm saying the M14 is a better design than the AR, as that is not my position. All I said is that in regard to the claimed "great ergonomics" of the AR, I consider the M14A1 (sans bipod and muzzle brake) to have better balance and handling.