I was an Air Force SP in the 80’s. We carried M-16’s without forward assists. If something went wrong, you racked the charging handle and kept going. I never had a problem. Stoner was right, you don’t need it!
USAF was the lead for taking the AR-15 to the Pentagon after Dr. Carten on Army Ordnance Board rejected it. Once the subsequent production orders kicked off with the lessons learned on the Colt 601 and Colt 602, the US Army 603 specs required the Forward Assist, while the USAF 604 forbade it from being present. USAF had 601s (Green Rifle), 602s, and 604s in service up into the 2000s.
I know the timeline. I was in 84-88. I saw a mix of a lot of cool old parts still around. Duck bill and three prong flash suppressors, chrome bolt carriers, small tab bolt hold open buttons, even a few small triangle charging handles. We also had GAU-5A’s, Colt Commandos. We were short on M-203’s so we also had XM-148’s thrown into the mix. I also qualified with the M-79 as a contingency. By the time I got out all the old parts had been updated by the armory. Everything had bird cages and phosphate bolts. All the old 20 round mags were gone. We didn’t carry them, but we used them in training. I managed to keep a couple.
You must be and Army guy 😀. I was on a SAC base with alert B-52s, KC-135s and a squadron of F-106s. The bombers and the fighters were loaded with “priority A resources”. We had our Sierra together and we were not playing games.
I'm the guy who uploaded the Eugene Stoner interviews to RU-vid and just wanted to say I've been a long time fan of InRangeTV (this is an alt account), so it's great to see you commenting on these. The interviews themselves are great for clearing up a lot of the fuddlore around the M16, with Stoner's own words no less. I especially enjoyed Stoner's story about the project director hammering rounds into the chamber in order to justify the forward assist. There's also stuff about the Stoner 63, Stoner's later work at ARES where he takes apart the Stoner 86 LMG, and even Kalashnikov and Stoner meeting in Virginia in 1990.
Many thanks for uploading these! They deserve to be on the internet. I'd like to think that the forward assist is vestigial, but I can't shake the thought that it's useful for bolt binding in freezing weather, a la what happened frequently in winter during the Korean war. Did he comment on that in any of the interviews?
The M16A2 is everything that's wrong with the design by committee - Karl Me - I remember being in Iraq and Wishing I had something as light as my A2, when I was hauling around that pig of an A4 with heavy barrel, quad rails, and rail covers. The A2 was a downgrade.....but things got SO MUCH WORSE.
Yeah I find the A2 to be not bad at all. Of course, my WWSDish build is preferable; but the A2 isn’t that bad compared to what I was schlepping in the ‘Stan
A lot of people tend to turn their head when I say I prefer an A2 Platform AR Over say, a Carbine length or “pistol”. Usually they talk about adding XYZ, but I prefer simplicity XD
I like the A4, but thats mostly just cause of the ability to mount things to it. Now however with how they went about it as you said it was like a boat anchor
I hated the A4 so much. So much weight just for the ability to strap on even more weight in accessories that maybe 1% or less of the people issued them would ever actually use. And it always felt front heavy.
When I was a new recruit in the US army in 1996, waiting to start my basic training as an 11B at Ft. Benning, between my inprocessing at 30th AG, and my starting basic at C Co. 2/58, I was detailed for 3 days to the armory on the base where a lot of small arms were stored and serviced. It was mostly staffed by DOD civilians who were veterans, and the one I worked most closely with those few days was a Vietnam vet who presaged many of the same criticisms in this video. He firmly believed that the M16A2 was an inferior weapon to the A1. It might have been better on the target range, with its more finely adjustable sights, but it was not a better _combat_ rifle. The adjustable sights were a needless complexity, he said, that would go unused by most soldiers. The 3-round burst feature was an attempt at a mechanical solution to a training problem. And the heavier barrel wasn't heavier for most of its length, only out near the muzzle where you didn't want all that extra weight to be. I think he was spot on in his criticisms. It's interesting to me to consider the parallels behind the thinking that produced the M16A2, and the M1903 Springfield, which also had a rear sight optimized for target range performace, but wasn't a great combat rifle sight. It really is true that the longer a peacetime period lasts, the more the army's thinking drifts away from what works best in combat, and toward controlled events like target range competitions at Camp Perry.
Many of the type of "quite calm engineer guy behind the scenes" are actually quite pleasant people to talk to irl. Unlike those "business entrepreneur who cultivates an image of genius engineer-inventor with no equals around himself" like Ford or Edison or some modern examples, whom you really wouldn't want to have among your circle.
From wood and steel to plastic and aluminum. The AR was a game changer and by modernizing it with the latest from material science you're keep Stoners dream alive.
Aluminum and polymer were new and different in the 1950s, but nowadays they're commonplace. If Stoner were alive today, he might have moved on to newer materials and manufacturing processes. I think it would be cool to see what he'd come up with... carbon fiber? Scandium alloys? Nikasil plating?
For those who have a problem with a lightweight weapon, I invite you to attempt this thing called a ruck-march. Put on body armor, ammunition, a full camel-back, and a 40 pound pack. Walk 6 miles carrying your weapon and wearing all this stuff. THEN commence your match. Also, I gotta wonder how many folks who don't like polymer lowers happen to own a mostly polymer pistol.
Damn Skippy, as a light infantryman back years ago. Nothing light about light infantry all the extra gear you got loaded up with. 12 miles in under 3 hours with all your required gear. (EIB standards) My first duty position was as RTO for my P.L. so all that plus PRC-77 radio batteries vinsent and batteries too. M16A1 w 203.
Context via text is often difficult to convey. Light rifles are great... until you have to actually shoot something that isn't a varmint cartridge. My .350 rem mag is a light compact handy little gun but it is no fun at a bench. Heavy guns are great... at a bench but not slung or in the hands. I've got a .22 project that will likely end up around 12-14 pounds and it'll be fun to shoot, but no way am I packing it around in field or woods. Fun and games on the internet.
Doing a ruck-march in full kit including your weapon of choice before a gun match is actually a great idea. They do a good job covering all the challenges and obscurities of shooting in combat conditions except for simulating the physical stress often leading into combat itself. You might be onto something there.
It was not just him alone, politics like the AWB or weapon import bans did help A LOT as well. Take the Type-97: Its nowhere near an AR, but its quite cheap. And cheap stuff sells (see the Hi-Point).
@Robert Sears Stoner made exactly what was requested of him, without him we would be years behind and you would be saying that someone else could have done better.
I've felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror, "wood and steel," and then were suddenly silenced. I feel as though something wonderful has happened. Great video Karl, I appreciate your diligence in research, critical thinking, and consideration in making this video and all your others. You and InRange are a breath of fresh air in our gun culture.
I like my old wood and steel bolt actions, but if I was fighting for my life, AR all the way. The AR is also a great rifle for new shooters due to low recoil.
So here's the thing - I love guns with steel receivers, gas pistons, and wood stocks. AK, SKS, even the M1A - love those. However, the reality is that Stoner's design and concepts work, and that in some respects, particularly weight and portability, the Stoner ARs are an extremely good idea for a lightweight fighting rifle. And they've been proven. If an AK guy like myself can see the logic to this design and the materials used, I would hope others could as well.
Hell, Kalashnikov saw the logic too. All their modern designs have moved on from wood, and have modernized in general (though I gotta say, the most recent generation is disappointing. Seems to be tacking on more and more "tacticool" crap rather than focusing on lightening and flexibility for deployment. Probably why the majority of the Russian armed forces and its allies are still just using AK-74Ms. Kinda a high point in AK design).
I still don't get the poop where it eats thing when HKs are even dirtier and extracting under pressure will blow crap into the receiver regardless of the caliber or platform.
The weak point of Stoner is dependence on high-technology and chemistry that is not universal or even widely available, especially in the 1960s. The USA was one of the only countries with enough polymer and aluminum-working infrastructure to even attempt the Armalite rifle concept. Today, with the sheer economy of scale involved, people forget how complex the actual manufacturing of AR15 components is; InRange has plenty of content showing such. Stoner could look forward to an expanding chemical industry and more use of aluminum, to continued innovation and lowering costs, while today, we have to be aware that society, or at least politicians, may decide those industries are not acceptable to them. All it takes for key polymers to stop being available is someone getting 400-something votes in Congress saying that polymers as they are are too environmentally dangerous to continue as they are.
@@genericpersonx333 oh, my friend, the arms industry is a bigger priority for the majority of politicians than the environment will ever be. AWB and shit like that is one type of thing, focused on disarming the public, but almost no one has any interest in disarming the military, or forcing them to fundamentally change. And the arms industry are great friends to have as a politician. They can pay for your entire professional career. Republican, democrat, doesn't matter. (Also, as someone who is very environmentally focused, while the US military is one of the biggest polluters on earth, AR-15 materials are not a notable contributor, especially because AR-15s last a very long time, and the materials they use being expensive actually incentivizes industry making them to reduce waste as much as possible on their designs (since wasting special polymers and such). Trying to be pragmatic here and put my thoughts on military and state aside, purely looking at contributors to climate change, the USAF and US Navy are places to look first, as well as ridiculously inefficient vehicles like the Abrams that just guzzle high octane fuel at a comical rate, for minimal benefit)
Eugene's humbleness is awesome. The way he explains his choices for the way he made the parts a certain way and for the decisions he made are backed by pure practical reasons. Not for any reason other than for the good of the person carrying the rifle. I'm so happy that I watched this video because it really showed me alot about the man.
I just received my WWSD2020 rifle 2 days ago from Brownells. My 1st impression was its featherweight feel. I can't wait to bring it to the range! Karl, I admire your effort to return to the basics
If you can find someone with a SP 1 to compare it to you will be surprised on how close they are. I've got them racked near each other in my collection. I've got a N.O.S. AR-15 upper on BRN lower.
Unloaded without sights, the rifle weighs 4lbs 15.75oz. With 1 30rd PMAG and no sights, the rifle weighs 6lbs 1.44oz. PMAG loaded with American Eagle 62gr 5.56.
Only thing missing was a breakdown of the weight of the original stoner design, and the “end” design that was adopted, as well as a comparison/breakdown of the modern “What would Stoner do” variant. Might have been 3/5 minutes longer, but I wouldn’t have complained lol. Great video.
The SR25 distinction was particularly poignant. It all depends on the goal in mind. Really good to see the use of legitimate primary sources. This is the type of content that sets InRange, Forgotten Weapons, C&Rsenal, and a select few others above the rest.
I clearly remember being taught to push the forward assist every ... single ... time a magazine was loaded and the bolt closed. This was during our SARP training (Small Arms Replacement Project, about 87/88, Canadian Forces), moving from the FN C1A1 to the C7/C8. It was also reiterated every range day thereafter. I never witnessed a failure it fixed, and in my personal life, never saw an AR on the range that needed it.
The same here. But Damned if you didn't do it when performing S.P.O.R.T.S for EIB testing. Only time I've ever heard of it helping was with worn out / out of spec rifles used for or by training units or non deploying units.
I think I used it once when using iffy discount ammo. it was a bit bulged in the back and needed some extra oomff to get fully into battery. never used it with quality ammo though.
They thought it was necessary because the AR was the first rifle that didn’t have a charging handle that was connected directly to the BCG. All the AR charging handle does is draw the BCG back but you can’t apply any force to the BCG with it. They must have thought that was a design flaw and the FA was a way to correct it
It fixes most magazine induced malfunctions. Dealing with the old magazines that were issued, I've used the forward assist plenty of times. Never once did it blow up in my face for using it, seems to never happen with millions of m4s in service.
@@TheSundayShooter I think if you want to chrome an AR type rifle, BOTH is the way to go. The gasses come back into the bolt carrier through the gas tube, then expand in a chamber in the carrier and press against the bolt to unlock. The chamber, the barrel, the carrier, and the bolt head all get exposed to any corrosives from firing in that order, with the exception of gas leakage around the casing. Just chroming the barrel and chamber ignores the corrosion in the carrier and on the bolt, which also affects reliability, durability, and longevity. The same goes for the opposite: if you chrome the bolt and carrier but not the barrel or chamber, you'll have higher risk of corroding or prematurely wearing any surface inside the chamber or barrel, including the edges of the gas port, where the gasses under pressure erode the steel.
15:22 Gene mentioned the name of the project manager for Rock Island Arsenal, it's captioned as "Harold Yawn". That's Col. Howard Yount, who bore the brunt of scathing questions by Congress on 19 Oct 1967 about the debacle surrounding the AR-15 being adopted and the failures it suffered in Vietnam. He testified that the decisions, including the addition of the forward assist, were "On the basis of direction"; namely from his boss, which came from the boss of his boss.
@@bubba200874426 just like in real life. People who don't know shit about shit decide about it fuck it up and make sure others have to bleed for it. Welcome to the hierarchy.
@@bubba200874426 Pretty much, and when Congress began investigating, it was people like Col. Yount that were expected to take the fall. Instead, he testified to the contrary.
@@hateferlife The Army puts far more emphasis on armor, artillery, and aviation while small arms are more like an afterthought in terms of budget. The biggest problem I saw with anything related to small arms was allowing people with no passion or extensive knowledge about small arms to be PEOs for 2-3 years, then another guy comes in. Wash, rinse, repeat. There tend to be far more technically-inclined officers in the armor, artillery, and aviation branches and that culture starts in the academies and screening for those CMFs. Civilians have zero access to or intimacy with Army aviation, armor, and artillery, whereas small arms are more accessible and common.
Brilliant analogy of Stoner's own words. I appreciate yours and Ian's work. I recently retired from a facility mfg'ing both Ar-10 and AR 10's. Aerospace ties with carbon fiber and state of the art machines. It was a life long goal to make 10's.It's a lot harder than most people think. Look at Christensen Arms. I got to machine receivers from bar stock, drill, ream and button our own barrels. We wrapped with carbon fiber and hand laid carbon fiber handguards. What a blast. I know your joy with the "what would Stoner do" project. Love your channels, good work.
But wait, don't stop here! Stoner also developed a family of 5.56 machineguns and even held early Patents on polymer case telescoped ammo in .50 and 5mm. That "future rifle" he was making at Ares is very similar to the modern ngsw designs that are floating around. Except it was in 5mm instead of the modern rifle's 6.8mm. Imagine that.
Huh, who'd have known that there is nothing new under the sun? I'm pretty sure the whole reason the 6.8 mm nonsense is even considered is because US Army got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan by goat herders with Lee-Enfields and PKMs, and they are extremely salty about it.
Stoner sounds like my dad, talking about the engineering projects he did with the Navy (he was a naval architect, and worked on submarines and aircraft carriers). I think it's the general "engineer talking shop about things they've worked on." And yeah, there ends up being a lot of interesting elements that are only tangentially related to the actual construction: budget restrictions, politics, procedures, etc.
Ann early (3 prong) M-16 was my issue in the Army, but I don't remember any polymer parts on it. Fiberglass, aluminum alloy, and steel, as I recall. I completely agree that Stoner would use polymer today, as it is an amazing bank of materials. And I do think the WWSD project is spot on, in concept, design purpose, and execution. The advantage of a light weight rifle isn't just easier carrying. The ability to quickly swing a light rifle onto target (especially in CQB) is a real life saver. I think Stoner would be quite proud of what you have accomplished.
@@tropixMw2 Err,fiberglass is polyester resin with a specific hardener.Epoxy is a different chemical reaction. Certainly modern epoxies can be used instead, but polyester was the original choice.
The first AR-15 furniture was a series of phenolic resins that eventually evolved into glass nylon with the last M16A1 furniture updates in the 1970s. The earliest furniture on 601s was brown like Bakelite, then started getting black dye added on the 602 and early mottled looking stocks, grips, and handguards in the no-compartment buttstock days. M16A2 took the glass nylon from the last A1 upgrades and beefed it up in thickness, while introducing the mirrored circular handguards. Early triangle handguards had a tendency to crack teeth, so that specific left or right HG would need replacement. Circular guards reduced the logistics burden of triangle L-R guards, with an increased strength material and design where no teeth existed. The buttstock was lengthened too, which made the A2 a bit unwieldy for about half of the soldiers. The heavy forend profile on the barrel added weight in a place that threw the balance off. The original AR-15 & M16/M16A1 handled much better for carry and presentation.
@@buckaroobonsi555 What would he do is a subject I won't get into, but the ability to repair and replace parts is overstated. There's many modern designs where the pistol grip is part of the lower and if anything, the stock being a detachable part is more about allowing the internal parts to be removed from the rear than anything else. The dovetailing piece actually makes it look easier to break even though if it does break it probably either breaks the lower or the stock, not both.
@@buckaroobonsi555 I respectfully disagree. They were chasing military sales, and the ability to replace a lower, trigger guard and pins, grip with screw and washer, buffer tube, end plate, castle nut, and stock all with a single incredibly cheap part would prove irresistible to military bean counters and logisticians. Parts stockage just got much simpler. Remember that even the mags were supposed to be one time use and disposable, so throwing away a cheap plastic part and replacing it is a no brainer to that mindset.
I love small arms solutions… but he’s responsible for spreading some of this fudlore regarding Stoner not wanting to get into 223 ammunition , not pushing for the 556 AR variant over the 762 variant, and not emphasizing an extreme light weight design . In 2020 he has a few videos of him saying these things multiple times. I’ve been catching him saying a few dubious information pieces regarding KAC and LMT also. SAS saying those things confused me considering Stoner pushed revolutionary aluminum forging, helped create 223, and was quietly agitated during the entire trial and political process for his gun pre adoption.
SAS is pretty fuddy when it comes to Colt lore. He went on and on about the M4 TDP being, and I’m paraphrasing, proprietary, super secret and only ARs built to its exact specifications being a true M4. I guess that’s technically correct but it was a weird point to hammer on. 5 minutes of googling and you can find the TDP online. It made more sense when he mentioned he used to commute like 3 hours one way just to work at Colt.
@@b52doc57 As far as I know, the M4 TDP is not available outside of the defense industry. The original M16 TDP is, but I've not been able to find the M4 TDP anywhere.
@@schifty1 M4 is only indicative of the barrel length. The m4 uses a 14.5 inch barrel length where the m16 have a 20 inch barrel length. The m4 and m16 are the same gun just that use the small name changes to help make it easier to say what version of an AR15 you are using at the moment. Now fun fact time a lot of people believe at AR15 stands for assuming rifle, it doesn’t it stands for arma lit 15.
@@cameronrhodes7390 ArmaLite rifle that’s what AR stands for. Arma is Latin for weapon and the hand guard of the OG ar was made of Bakelite( I believe I’m speculating from here) so together you get Armalite which is also a nod to the weapons being light.
@@cameronrhodes7390 There's the "m4" feedramps which are a patented design too, along with telescoping carbine receiver extension and short barrel as a whole package I guess. Never heard people call it "assuming rifle", tho I've heard misinformation of people thinking it stands for is "assault rifle" (instead of Armalite Rifle which it really means).
The stoner tapes are worth a listen! The background on the military acceptance, cartridge definitions, related powder issues are very enlightening. His later work was also very interesting.
Things the M16A2 got right: you couldn't close the rifle up on the dust cover any longer, the plastics were better, identical and more durable hand guards which were retained by an easier to use conical ring, and the front sight post was square which made for a better sight picture.
i think yall should be very proud of the work on wwsd project. you guys really showed alloy of people what an ar15 can be, in the lightweight carbine role. Its funny to me how the aftermarket custom industry and the military sort of developed in very similar directions. The first generation of custom ar rifles i remember seeing were heavy and customized with range and bench shooting in mind. and the second batch had all the accessories. from the useful to the pretty pointless.
The fudd mentality hanging around of most shooting activity being a leisurely thing, and then getting phased out as people start to enjoy more dynamic shooting?
It made me rethink my opinion that aluminum is better than polymer all around because of the durability factor. My carbines got heavy. They need a diet.
Listening to Sir Stoners brilliant ideas just shows how incredibly intelligent he truly was ,I believe he would shake you hand today if he could...thank you InRange.
Great job, i had no idea you were taking criticism over the WWSD rifle love mine and have purchased several KE polimer lowers for other projects. It is my sincere belief that the KE Arms polimer lower receiver will take over the market like Glock did to pistols.
Coming from a combat Marine perspective, I have used the forward assist in a literal firefight in Afghanistan. The BCG didn't go into full battery because there was a small granular obstruction on the next round. Hitting the forward assist got it into battery and the following rounds were fine. Had I needed to take my rifle apart in the middle of a firefight, I might not be here today or someone else may not be here because I would not have been able to maintain suppressive fire. Just my take, but it's not the 100,000 non-failures that justify an addition; it's the one failure that can cost lives that justifies it. No one has to use the forward assist if they don't want to or need to, but in the event you need it, you'll be glad you have it
bingo. it’s not in the way. it doesn’t add noticeable weight. it’s there if you need it. i’ll keep mine. nobody cries about the bayonet lug they’ve never used.
What the hell does deleting it even do for the shooter, saving like 1 oz? Why not delete the CH too, failure to feed from improperly using the CH causes way more failures.
@@DD-hz3ts I had my M-16A1 forward assist catch on barbed wire Ranger School. Crawling under barbed wire one puts the rifle on your belly, so the barbed wire slides down the rifle, or would until it catches on the Forward Assist.
Without the forward assist, you'd thumb the divot on the bolt carrier, and that would push the bolt forward pretty much the same. No leverage multiplication no, but if thumbing the bolt carrier home doesn't do the trick, then that's not a round you'd want to touch off in the first place. The FA is a pointless part that adds nothing while introducing unnecessary complexity and potential points of failure that would not otherwise be there with a slickside upper.
I've seen a forward assist actually come in handy once. I'll add that the bolt has to rotate, creating friction, while it's force for closing often depends on how the charging handle was released. If released to slowly or awkwardly, a forward assist can come in handy. This is referring to, of course, loading a new round from the mag manually. Further, there can be extraction issues resulting in a bolt that doesn't travel rearward all the way, thus creating a weaker than desired new feeding. And, this is also where a forward assist could help.
It's funny how there is this stereotype about Russians being brutes with their weapons and smash their guns to fix any malfunctions. And yet the US military literally asked Stoner to add a feature on their gun so that they can do exactly that
@Sauli Luolajan-Mikkola I dunno, the Singaporean troopers I talk to, they like the forward assistance in their ARs-- the guy I talked to described in an mock battle where they laid an ambush; due Singaporean military rifle handling procedures they never have a round chambered until it's time to actually engage the enemy and when the guy's troop was ordered to charge their rifles, they'd pull the charging handle back just enough to get a round into the chamber but not far enough to engage then they'd use the forward assist to quietly seal the bolt instead of the regular noisy chambering process and potentially alert the OPFOR.
I like having a way to strongly manipulate the bolt in both directions. It sounds counterintuitive and needs to be done carefully but sometimes it helps to loosen up binding from debris, etc if you alternately bump it forward and pull it back rather than just only try to pull it back. Really just depends on how things are jammed in there.
@@chloedemeter5473 I would really like a rearward assist to help pull a stuck case out. The charging handle is just not really cut out for yanking on. I know you can mortar the gun and use the bolt's mass, but having a mechanical way to open the gun would be more useful to me than a way to close it.
I turned an A2 into an inoperable block of ice once during an exercise in AK. I was firing (blanks, lots of 'em,) while low crawling through snow, under wire, etc with my rifle in my right hand. The hot gun melted snow which instantly refroze and soon I was out of action. It was educational for me to say the least and I felt silly for not seeing it coming.
Thank you so much. I was always told that Stoner shunned switching to smaller intermediate cartridges. It's awesome to hear and see him addressing that.
Excellent presentation, sir. Having just spent 2 hours watching the Stoner series, you buried several of the misconceptions about Eugene Stoner and the development of the AR-15. Thank you.
Completed my transfer for my "Magic Wand" yesterday. Highly impressed. Money well-spent. Thanks IRTV for bringing this idea to fruit (been following since before the '17 was completed) and then going the extra mile and teaming with KE Arms to bring it to market. Outrageously good firearm.
Karl thank you for saving the design of such a brilliant man. I hope to see in the future that the WWSD project is reflected by more manufacturers and hopefully one day we can get into the realm of AR’s being once again what they were meant to be all along.
This is what real engineers sound like. It's very refreshing. It's really interesting how people develop ideologies and polarize around empirical technical questions.
Lol turns out you and Ian were spot-on. I think you'd be happy to know that my local gun shop here in NC carries multiple KE polymer lowers at all times. The WWSD bug is very contagious.
Love this stuff. Looking forward to WWSD 2050. I hope we can keep the WWSD project alive going forward forever as it's more of a set of requirements than a rifle :)
What I find interesting, is that the US military knew all the way back in the 20's that smaller calibers had better wounding capability than larger calibers at practical ranges. According to Julian Hatchers Book of the Garand, they did tests with calibers from .25 to .30, and found that out to 200yds, the much higher velocity of the .25 did noticeably more tissue damage than the higher calibers. They even noted that with better projectiles they could probably push that out to 300 to 400 yds. But past that the larger calibers retained better penetration and range, and because the military was committed to one standard cartridge for both rifles and MGs, and didnt want to lose the long range ballistics in the MGs, they compromised on .276. Until Garand showed he could make 30'06 work in his rifle, then they just stayed with that. But there had been a vocal contingent in the Ordnance branch (Hatcher among them) to adopt what was essentially the assault rifle concept back in the 20s, based on these and other studies.
I've used my forward assist now once to fix a jam! Spent case got stuck in the chamber after roughly 50 rounds. I used the forward assist to push the bolt over the cartage so the extractor could grab it and then mortared the brass out of the chamber. It worked once! I've never had to use it before or since in roughly 5000+ rounds that I've shot through ARs.
@@buckaroobonsi555 Chances are if Eugene Stoner was still around he probably would have designed a new rifle platform to replace the m16/m4/AR-15 using modern technology.
I think the fundamental assumptions of the WWSD project is that in post-war America we COULD design and build rifles using aircraft engineering. I think a more compelling thought experiment project is what does the "last-ditch" AR look like? I think the conceit of persistent prosperity and an uninterrupted supply chain on advanced materials is a conceit, especially in war time.
Gene Stoner is the coolest engineer. Love his stories and biographies about him. My dad was a mechanical engineer and former crew chief on the Midway. If he'd been able to see all the footage we are getting today, my dad would love this guy.
I used to be of the opinion the forward assist had no legitimate use but I have changed my opinion. Field conditions over the course of weeks in hot sandy areas will slow a rifle down. Maintenance for sure helps but when you have been crammed in the back of a Stryker with a section of dudes and you can barely move your arm with all the gear required to be in there let alone dissemble and clean your rifle proper maintenance will get stalled. Putting heavy amounts of sand and dirt into/on a gun will stop it, pounding a forward assist wont do anything but make it worse. However, slow accumulation in shitty conditions will slow the whole rifle down and the weapon wont always have the oompf to close the bolt. In these kind of field conditions, not some test to simulate conditions will you learn how your weapon truly works. I have used the forward assist in these conditions enough that I feel it should be a legitimate part on any combat rifle.
Hope you guys feel validated! I can get a kp-15 at my local gun shop over the counter now, thanks for doing so great of a service to the Stoner legacy.
Nice work fellas. Loads of thought, effort and reflection involved in this project. It really shows and has been a pleasure to watch as well. Start to finish.
Love this video. As USAF vet, I have argued these points with my brother for years. I do wish you had went over why the adjustable stock is mostly unnecessary.
Karl finding these tapes and having his very own Howard Stark moment of. “I am limited by the technology of my time but one day you’ll figure this out”
I'm a Marine since 2007 and although we trained with the forward assist, I never had to use it not once. Now civilian side my first AR was the M&P15 Sport Gen1 I got in 2011 and it has no forward assist or dust cover; it has been in the deserts of Arizona to the snowy mountains of Idaho to the coast of Oregon and it has been doing fine. I'm in West Virginia now and it's holding up to environments I go out with it in. All I replaced so far in it is add a stock saddle, Magpul MOE handguard and pistol grip, and added a Springco heavy buffer spring. Everything else is stock aside from replacing the gas rings and the cam pin on once a couple years ago. So fun.
Barrel length. Stoner mentioned the importance of velocity for .223 Rem multiple times in the clips you showed. I’ve been wondering since this project started why you went with a 16” barrel instead of a 20” barrel. Would you mind explaining the design philosophy behind your decision? My apologies if you already answered this question and I missed it.
Continued improvement in propellants permit attaining the needed velocity with a shorter barrel. Added velocity would be gained, but the necessary velocity is achieved with a 16 inch barrel.
Another thing not mentioned is the gas system; to my recollection the WWSD rifles use a mid-length gas system, which is considered better than a carbine-length gas system (commonly found on the M4 carbine) due to applying less pressure on the BCG when gas is vented, reducing long term wear and tear. The reduction in barrel length also doesn’t greatly affect the performance of the rifle at typical shooting distances (0-300 meters). A 20 inch barrel really starts to provide noticeable performance gain once you start shooting past 300 meters.
Wow! I love Mr Stoner. As a 60 year old aerospace engineer, I can see everything he says as accurate, and his approach is true engineering. Mr Browning designed his master pieces in a different time, and the methods were valid. Stoner, and now the WWSD team, have given the AR a deserved rebirth!!!
What a learned in the Army was the forward assist is used when you need to load the rifle in silence because if you load very slowly, without making noise, the bolt wont lock without make a push with the assist buton. In 5 years in service I probably used a couple of times. Just curiosity.
A properly set up and tune AR-15 the bolt should never get stuck even if you really slowly baby the carrier home. If it does not go into battery when riding the charging handle forward your gun is not properly tuned or is dirty and fouled.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 the counterargument is that while there's some issues where forcing the bolt into battery is the solution, there's many more where that isn't, and there's a few where that will make things significantly worse. While the forward assist has theoretical uses, what it actually acts as is a massive glowing neon sign saying "HIT ME" when anything goes wrong, whereas the best bet is usually to open the bolt and look for obstructions or fouling. And sure, in combat this is difficult, but while there may be one hypothetical scenario where hitting the forward assist saves a soldier's life, I can think of one just as likely where hitting the forward assist exacerbates the problem, and now you've got a bricked rifle in an emergency. You could argue it's an issue of training but it's just human instinct to click the "might fix it" button in the heat of the moment, rather than going through the steps to actually assess the issue.
@@thepinkplushie one thing I would say is the army does like to keep things a little to long so and old guns always fail to go into battery from wear and tear prefer they just not do that but yea.
Thing is the only time you really do that is to avoid dinging primers in a gun you often keep loaded for whatever reason. You could probably just as well let it go like halfway down and get the same result.
A man truly ahead of his time. The ARs were designed 70 freakin years ago and are still doing their business great. BTW the M16s in Vietnam failed because the bullet manufacturers put the wrong kind of powder in the rounds, simply because it was cheaper. Once they put the right powder in, it had very little issues. And although the forward assist is unnecessary, it still looks cool as Hell lol
The bean counters demanded a switch to hydroscopic powder when it was supposed to go to a damp environment. Cost cutting or deliberate sabotage? Bullet manufacturers didn't load the ammo. The us government did.
Also most of the m16s dont have cleaning kits and manuals being issued during Vietnam war literally someone in the ordinance and logistics inside in the army really sabotaged it.
This was super interesting to watch. Thank you for sharing all of this! Between this and Ian's video shooting the CDW version of this WWSD rifle has me *very* interested in picking one up.
Very well made, as per usual. I had never heard Eugene Stoner's words directly. I have to say, how close you guys designed the WWSD rifle to his original concept is uncanny. I am curious what his thoughts on iron sights and electronic sighting systems was, or would have been, if he had seen where red dots are currently.
I agree with your position on the forward assist, what gets forgotten is that it was an 'oh, shit!" button for a rare, "oh, shit!" situation which was being face to face with the enemy and needing that one round to go, no matter what with a carboned up/dirty chamber not letting that round fully sear into battery. Any "properly maintained" rifle with properly made ammo shouldn't need a button. I fully understand all the bad stuff involved and that you're probably not going to get a second round working after actually having to use the button but, when you've got an eighteen yr old kid with a dirty rifle faced with either dying for sure or pushing "the button" and possibly living, they installed the button. I get it.
I don't know why you felt compelled to do this video, but I like it! "My" AR-15 was an SP1 and I really liked it. Only fired the SP2 once for 'qualification' and felt it to be not as good. Although plenty accurate enough. I really liked the whole WWSD project, and when able, I'll buy one. Thanks Karl and Ian for the project and a great carbine.
The talk of the forward-assist is kind of interesting. If you need it you have a problem that needs to be fixed, not a workaround right? Well in combat you do not have the time to troubleshoot and fix a rifle when trying to get a round off. If the assist can get you one bullet into a combatant it did it's job. Removing it is insanity in my opinion. I've used my forward assist once, and then fired hundreds of shots and never had another failure to chamber so the underlying problem was an anomaly, and the forward assist was the solution.
Nothing stomps out myths like cold hard fact The only changes that needed to happen to the original Colt were the mag release fence, the new ejection port cover, the empty case deflector, and the A2 compensator. The clamshell handguard replacing the triangle is also sensible, as it is both more comfortable and easier logistically. Perhaps the rear sight could have been redesigned as a 4-position rotary flip like the CETME instead of a 2 position just to accommodate a little extra potential range with the rifle. Perhaps 300m ghost ring, 300m fine, 400m fine, and 500m fine apertures could have been the configuration (maybe 450 and 600), though the original design is more than serviceable.
All good points, though I'd say the sight changes are by far the least important for the average grunt. If you're firing at those kind of ranges you'd hope you'd have enough time to adjust your aim by eye, regardless of sights. And at that range suppression becomes more important than trying to get precise hits on target. Then again, I suppose 500 should be accounted for as it is on the higher end of what I'd consider "practical" range for a standard rifle, so I sorta see where you're coming from. I just worry cause I see a lot of rifles trying to account for various ranges and it often degrades the quality of the sight itself. Looking at pictures of the CETME rearsight, it looks mediocre, though obviously I'd have to fire it to know for sure.
@@thepinkplushie they're functional at best. The general gist was all I was getting at, not simply grafting one onto another. The CETME C sight blocks way too much of your peripheral, though it's not as bad as the CETME L flip sight. Machining or casting the part to be the lollipop shape of the AR L-flip would be complicated, but definitely gives the shooter a better sight picture
I'll add two more: #1 The WWSD is just a super light weight build. I prefer reliability over light weight. Uhhh, then why does is have a full weight bolt carrier and steel gas block? Spend weight where it is needed and remove it where it isn't. #2, My favorite: If you want light weight you just need to hit the gym more, hurr durr durr! Uhh, given equal gym time, every UNNESSCESSARY ounce removed is an ounce of something else I can carry, like a few more rounds, an extra battery, extra anything. Esspcially as those replacement items can be carried on the body and not the rifle, it is a big advantage.
Full weight bolt carriers are where you want weight, they add reliability. Steel gas blocks are also more reliable, they don't start moving around like unpinned aluminum blocks can when the barrel gets hot; and the weight they add is negligible.
In regards to the forward assist I’ve been hunting and I don’t like to drive around with one in the chamber (in case I get pulled over by a game warden it looks better on me) so when I get out of my truck and chamber a round I have on a few occasions not slung my charging handle hard enough trying to be quiet. I always check and see if it gets sent home all the way and a couple of times it hasn’t, a good love tap with the forward assist sends it all the way and I have killed deer relying on it.
From what I’ve seen, the key recent development has been the heat treatment of the lightweight barrel that ensures it retains its zero as it heats up instead of warping off in a random direction? (I’m not dissing the other improvements, I’m just saying this was the biggest).
I would say there are three, and in this order - 1. the advancement of polymers to make the complete lower (and magazines) 2. the lightweight barrel treatment 3. carbon fiber Just my opinion, and I admit I am no expert.
@@colemanmoore9871 I think the development of rail mounting systems (and to go even further, MLOK as a superior alternative to full picatinny rails) is a huge advancement since the 1950s when the AR was designed.
well, because THIS is so true I just HAVE TO bring the joke, here it is: "I don´t trust in those new small-bore light-weight fast firirng magazin rifles of yours!" *reloading a M1871 Jägerbuchse with a single 11x60R black powder round whilst lovingly locking to an old muzzle loader hanging over the chimney*
Very well done. Your exacerbation is completely understandable when discussing this topic. I've had a couple of conversations with others about this very thing. Wish like hell I had this video back then.
I’ll always be a fan of the forward assist, not as a malfunction remediation tool, but as a way of conducting bump checks. Try to do a bump check on an AR without a forward assist - there is a VERY high chance that bolt won’t close, especially on a new gun, just because you’re only retracting it a short distance rather than giving it a full length of travel to pick up momentum.
I know this comment is a month old but dude, there's a cutout in the bolt. Push it with your thumb. Works every time for me and generally my FA won't engage for press checks
I have a question: how does the stoner 63 factor in the convrsation? Do you think that some elements from THAT project could be transferred to the WWSD2020? Or do you think that the two projects are ultimately too different from each other to meet each other in any significant way?
Yeah, the way I see it, the design goals / constraints were simply completely different. The goal of the original Stoner M69W wasn't "a light-weight carbine" like the AR-15, but something that could basically handle every small arms role, including sustained fire in the belt-fed machine gun configuration. And so it was initially designed in 7.62x51 NATO, because militaries at the time would definitely want their (L)MGs in that caliber. And as a result, it was also designed to be very robust. But then lo and behold, by the time it became the actually commercially available Stoner 63, Stoner and co had changed it to 5.56x45 NATO (also making it one of the first 5.56 belt-fed MGs), and gave it a plastic stock and grips (i.e. lightening it where possible). What really hammers it home is, when you look up what he then did later on in the LMG space with the Stoner 86 and 96, it all reads "light-weight LMG", "weight reduction", etc etc
Hard disagreement with Karl's point on the forward assist with the old magazines I was issued it was often necessary, would often have a stopage that was just the bolt not quite getting into battery due to running out of energy not due to an obstruction.
The AR was truly the modern fighting rifle. It used modern machining, made from light weight materials, ergonomics that are copied for gun designs made today, and very little recoil.
When I started looking at parts for my first AR build in late 2019- early 2020 and the wwsd Playlist really helped and made me really appreciate the ar15 design thank you.
In the Army when we were trained on remedial action, the acronym we were taught is SPORTS - slap, pull, observe, release, tap, shoot. The "tap" in that was smacking that forward assist a couple of times. So it certainly was part of training. I will say I never had a need for it. The only time I ever used it is if I did a press check, I always felt better tapping it after because in my brain it might not have gone all the way back into battery.
