By Christopher R. Bartocci

In the late 1950s a new rifle was developed that would change the entire concept of the battle rifle. Although the U.S. Ordnance Corps had no vision to see it, history was in the making. Eugene M. Stoner while working for ArmaLite, a division of the Fairchild Engine and Aircraft of Hollywood, California, developed the AR-10. Taking his experience in the aircraft industry he replaced traditional wood stocks with new synthetic materials and changed from a traditional steel receiver to lightweight aircraft aluminum considerably decreasing the weight of the weapon. Another innovation was the use of a direct gas system instead of the traditional piston operating system. His design was very radical for that time. With the M14 nearly already adopted, the 7.62x51mm AR-10 was submitted to compete. As expected, the M14 was adopted but the AR-10 was noticed for being abnormally accurate for an auto-loading rifle. From there the AR-10 was cast into the bottomless scrap heap of the not invented here weapons of the U.S. Ordnance Corps. Although a request from the Air Force would have the AR-10 scaled down to .22 caliber and the birth of the AR-15 would go on to revolutionize the battle rifle and have a more then 50 year legacy of the longest serving U.S. rifle in history, the AR-10 lay dormant. That was until Gene Stoner teamed up with C. Reed Knight Jr. of Knight’s Armament Company (KAC) and went back to work on his AR-10 that he never had quite given up on. However, there had been several improvements to the M16 series and he would carry many of them over to his updated AR-10 and developed the SR-25. The acronym stood for Stoner Rifle and added the 10 from the AR-10 with the 15 from AR-15.

Introduced in the early 1990s the SR-25 shared 60% parts compatibility with the current issue M16A2. Funding for the SR-25 development came through commercial sales. As first introduced, the rifle had a 24 inch Remington 5R rifled barrel. At that time, KAC was the only company Remington would sell these precision barrel blanks to. The Match rifle was designed specifically to fire factory 168 grain open tip match ammunition. With this ammunition Knight guaranteed that every rifle that left his Vero Beach facility would fire at or less than one inch at 100 yards and he was willing to prove it by sending the target with every rifle. The original rifles used AR-10 magazines but Stoner would redesign the magazine and improve it giving it a more familiar M16 look. The rifle used the newly introduced integral rail flat top upper receiver so optics could be mounted in line with the shooters eye. The bolt carrier group would retain the original chrome plating and this would go on to be a KAC trademark. The upper and lower receivers were serialized and fitted for precision fit and the SR-25 had a free floated barrel using a carbon fiber handguard. The rifles were not mass produced and when one thinks of Knight’s Armament Company a standard is set for the finest weapons in the world where state-of-the-art meets old world craftsmanship. Stoner continued to improve his design until his death in 1997. Unfortunately, Stoner never saw his new rifle to be finally accepted by the U.S. military as the Mk11 Mod 0 sniper rifle, which would equip the most elite soldiers and sailors the world would ever know.

The Mk11 had some departures from the original design to meet the SOCCOM requirement. The rifle was designed to fire the M118 and M118LR match grade 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition and the Obermeyer barrel was shortened to 20 inches and equipped with a mount for a quick detachable sound suppressor also developed by Knight’s Armament Company. The 11.35 inch Rail Accessory System free floating handguard provided quad Mil-Std-1913 rails enabling attachment of any given number of accessories including night vision, lasers, tactical lights and bipods. The standard M16A2 stock and pistol grip are used for parts commonality. A flip up front sight was added to the gas block as well as KAC’s fully adjustable back up iron sight was also added. The rifle was equipped with 20-round magazines, a Leupold Vari-X mil dot scope with detachable rings and a Harris bipod. The Mk11 weighs 15.3 pounds unloaded and has an overall length of 45.4 inches long. The Mk11 would see action with U.S. Special Operations troops all over the world.

Knight’s Armament Company is first and foremost a defense contractor so commercial weapons were rare and due to the manufacturing process and quality they are very expensive. However, some did trickle down to the commercial market. In 2009, KAC introduced a new rifle, the SR-25 Enhanced Match Rifle. This rifle is a commercial version of the MK11 with the addition of the new URX free floating handguard that was designed for use on the M110 SASS (Semi Automatic Sniper System), which is replacing the M24 Remington sniper rifle in the U.S. Army.

The 20 inch barrel is the same as the one used on the Mk11. Through the evolution of the SR-25, the upper receiver was originally made from an aluminum extrusion; now the current rifles use forgings. The fired cartridge case deflector is now integral in the receiver rather than attached to the rail. Keeping with the tradition of the AR-10 and Gene Stoners expertise, no forward assist was added to the SR-25 family of weapons. The URX (Upper Receiver Extending) handguard as noted previously is a complete free floating handguard with a built-in folding front sight. When folded it acts as additional rail. The gas block has a section of rail on top of it as well as the mounting bracket for the QD sound suppressor. The rifle was supplied with three rail protectors enabling the rifle to be held and shot without a bipod. The upper receiver was also equipped with the KAC fully adjustable folding back up sight.

The bolt carrier group has gone through changes over the years. KAC has improved upon the chroming process and one of the finest features of the bolt carrier is the captive firing pin retainer pin. The carrier uses the standard M16 carrier key. The bolt has remained very similar to the original design with the major enhancement being to the extractor and ejector.

The lower receiver has most certainly gone through evolutionary changes. The area to the rear of the magazine release was machined down similar to the standard M16 making the button easier to actuate. The original SR-25 used a plastic spring guide, whereas the new rifle has an actual buffer. The standard M16A2 buttstock is used. Added to the left side of the receiver is an ambidextrous magazine release that can be reached by the trigger finger of a left-handed shooter. The trigger is the KAC designed two stage trigger which has an excellent crisp pull. The first stage is 3 pounds and the second breaks at around two pounds. The bolt catch has been redesigned from the original design. Originally it was a standard M16 bolt catch but with heavy use it proved not to be strong enough the take the weight and halt the 7.62mm bolt. KAC developed a stronger bolt catch.

The SR-25 Enhanced Match Rifle weighs 10.4 pounds with an overall length of 39.5 inches. The barrel is 20 inches long. Using GI issue M118LR (175 grain) match ammunition produces a muzzle velocity of 2,560 feet per second. The rifle is supplied with a 20-round magazine and an operator’s manual as well as a safety lock.

The test and evaluation rifle provided was just what I would have expected from Reed Knight. A precision rifle held to the highest craftsmanship and modern manufacturing standards. The rifle was not provided with an optic. Everybody has a different idea of what the best optic is and KAC lets that be up to the customer. Some additional magazines were procured and the rifle was tested with the new Magpul LMag and the C-Products 20-round steel magazines.

The ammunition used for testing was provided by Silver State Armory. Function testing was done with Silver State Armory M80 Ball (SSA10084-150FMJ). Accuracy testing was done with two different Silver State Armory loads. First was the 168 grain Sierra open tip match (SSA10084-OTM) and the second was the 175 grain Sierra open tip match (SSA10084-M118LR). The cartridge cases are manufactured by Silver State Armory to match specifications and their powder blends are proprietary and chosen for the particular load. Silver State Armory is known for their manufacturing of match quality ammunition in 5.56mm, 7.62mm, 6.8mm Rem SPC and a few others. They specialize in military calibers.

The barrel of the rifle was cleaned every 20 rounds with no malfunctions in 140 rounds that were fired. Targets were fired at 100 yards and both the 168 and 175 grain match rounds produced groups that averaged .45 to .75 inches – just as guaranteed by KAC and the target they provided. With the low round count I would expect the rifle to shoot even better if the barrel was broken in. The M110 will be with the U.S. military for quite some time.

By Christopher R. Bartocci

On October 1, 1954, ArmaLite became a division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane of Hollywood, California. Unknown to any of the founders of this company, they would alter the course of America, as well as many other nations, and the concept of what an assault rifle of the future was to be. The new ArmaLite weapons would introduce a new generation of materials and manufacturing techniques to make the most advanced, accurate and light weight battle rifles available.

Eugene Stoner went to work for ArmaLite as a Senior Design Engineer. Stoner and his team (Art Miller, Jim Sullivan, Bob Freemont & others) took the advanced materials used in the aircraft industry (aluminum alloys as well as synthetic materials) to design a light weight modern 7.62x51mm caliber assault rifle, the AR-10. Prior to its introduction, virtually all 7.62mm small arms were made of the traditional steel and wood materials. This led to the continuing use of heavy weapons that were difficult, if not impossible, to control on automatic fire and with using wood stocks, prone to the wood swelling when wet as well as cracking.

Stoner claimed that his primary interest was always the development of 7.62x51mm caliber rifles. As stated in an ArmaLite sales brochure from 1959, the AR-10 was truly “Tomorrow’s Rifle-Today.” The AR-10 made use of modern aircraft grade aluminum alloy receivers dramatically reducing weight compared to conventional steel receivers. The stocks (stock, pistol grip and handguards) were manufactured from advanced synthetic materials adding several benefits to the rifle. These synthetic materials were unaffected by the environment; impervious to rain, humidity, snow or heat. Most importantly to the troop in the field, it was light weight. This enabled the soldier to carry the new AR-10 with 50 rounds of 7.62mm to match the weight of the M1 rifle alone.

Another planned design benefit of the AR-10 was the use of low cost high capacity magazines that held twenty rounds of NATO ammunition that would have allowed the troop to carry preloaded magazines that could be discarded when done. This enabled the soldier to carry substantially more ammunition, therefore providing significantly more firepower on the individual level.

The AR-10 utilized an extremely simple gas system that both decreased weight and increased the accuracy over that of other weapons in its class. Gas was directed by a gas tube/exhaust pipe into the bolt carrier group. This gas delivery method was first seen in use on the Swedish Ljungman Gewher 42 and later would be utilized in the French MAS combat rifles. The design that would make Eugene Stoner one of the most important small arms designers of the last century was his design to make the gas tube run under the hand guards from the front sight base to an opening in the bolt carrier group. The expansion chamber was created inside the bolt carrier group between the rear of the tail of the bolt and the rear of the bolt carrier, eliminating the need for a heavy piston rod, nor any rod attached to the barrel that would decrease accuracy due to interference with barrel harmonics. The gas system consists of a gas tube, which looks like a long exhaust pipe that goes from the front sight assembly/gas block to the bolt carrier group. As the projectile passes the gas port located under the front sight assembly, the gas is directed back to the bolt carrier by it traveling down the gas tube, pressurizing the system, and is lead into an expansion chamber within the bolt carrier group. The expansion chamber is made between the rear of the tail of the bolt and the back of the bolt carrier. That pressure drives the bolt carrier rearward. Just as the bullet leaves the barrel, the cam rotates the multi-lug bolt out of alignment unlocking the bolt from the barrel extension, extracting the fired cartridge case and ejecting it from the rifle. As the carrier moves rearward it does a couple of things. First, the bottom of the carrier pushes the hammer back regardless if it is to a disconnector or auto sear. Then the buffer/ buffer spring is compressed. Once the bolt carrier assembly has traveled to its furthest point rearward, the spring and buffer return the bolt carrier group forward, stripping a cartridge off the magazine, feeding, chambering and locking the bolt into battery ready for the next shot. This is an inline system meaning the tip of the barrel is inline with the center mass of the buffer/ stock, thereby increasing accuracy and reliability while decreasing recoil.

Battling the “Not Made Here” Syndrome

During this development stage of the AR-10 rifle, the United States Army was looking to update its arsenal from the outdated 8-shot M1 Garand. Although once touted as the greatest battle implement ever, time, as well as warfare, changed. A rifle with a high capacity magazine and selective fire capabilities was needed desperately. Especially since it appeared the U.S. was falling behind in the advancements in battle rifle development. The Germans saw this need in World War II and adopted das Sturmgewehr; the world’s first true assault rifle giving the shooter controllable and accurate semi or automatic fire at the discretion of the shooter thereby massively increasing firepower of the unit at the individual level. Around the same time, the Soviet’s began development of their own assault rifle, which was not adopted until 1947 when the AK47 made its world debut and was about to set the bar for effective combat weapons. The U.S. would not take this lack of initiative or vision into account until US troops came onto the receiving end of Mikhail Kalashnikov’s new rifle in the rice paddies of Vietnam. Not until then would the U.S. Ordnance Corps realize how far behind they were in small arms technology.

When the U.S. military was looking for a rifle to replace their obsolete M1 Garand, trials were held with the requirement it would fire the newly adopted 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. Although the obvious conclusions to the requirement was that they wanted an advanced rifle design that would fill the role of several weapons currently in use including the M1 Garand, M1/ M2 Carbine, BAR, Thompson SMG as well as the M3 SMG. What Springfield Armory came up with was none of the above, especially in the advanced category. They put forth for the trials their T44,which was essentially an M1 Garand with a removable 20 round box magazine and a selector switch that allowed fully automatic bursts that the average soldier could not control. The rifle was just as heavy even though it used the slightly less powerful cartridge. The other entry was the T48, which was a version of the FN FAL rifle. The trials showed much interest in the ArmaLite AR-10, especially in weight, reliability and accuracy. Nevertheless, the winner was declared as the M14 (the T44 rifle). The M14 would go down in history as the shortest serving small arm in U.S. history when it was replaced within 6 years with the AR-15/M16 rifle.

ArmaLite was devastated by this failure. In hind sight you would have to ask yourself if they were upset because their candidate lost or if it was because they knew they had the better weapon, one that was more advanced than anything currently fielded anywhere in the world. They knew it was Ordnance Corp politics that would put an outdated arm in the hands of their troops who were soon to deploy to the jungles of Southeast Asia. It was there that the Ordnance Corps would realize they got the wrong gun and they needed a true assault rifle fast. But that is a different story.

After the trials were over, interest in the .30 caliber cartridge was now getting put on the back burner to the new high-velocity .22 caliber cartridge. ArmaLite would now focus on downsizing their AR-10 tothe AR-15 to fire this new 5.56mm cartridge. The rest is history. The AR-10 went into the Ordnance Corps scrap heap, a victim of poor politics. Small numbers of AR- 10 rifles were produce by Artillerie- Inrichtingen of Zaandam, Holland, but eventually went away. The AR-10 would have to wait until the early 1990s before it would be revisited and appreciated for its advanced design and benefits to U.S. troops, but it would be the U.S. Special Operations Command who would revive it. Gene Stoner would team up with C. Reed Knight, Jr. at Knight’s Armament Company to revive the rifle he could never get out of his head. There, the SR25 would be born: a 7.62x51mm caliber rifle that would have many of the updates from the current M16A2 family of weapons.

The ArmaLite name went into ambiguity and remained a company who made brilliant advancements in small arms development but never had the selling knowhow to make it to the top.

ArmaLite Makes a Comeback

In the late 1980s, several companies would start producing copies of the AR- 15/M16. One of them was Eagle Arms of Coal Valley, Illinois. However, ingenuity and research and development at Eagle Arms were pretty much limited to reverse engineering Colt AR-15 and M16 rifles and producing versions for commercial sales. That was until January of 1994 when anenergetic and true firearms designer bought the company. Former U.S. Army Ordnance Officer and civilian employee of AMCCOM at Rock Island, Mark Westrom restructured the company and began development on new products. On the top of that list is what Westrom named the M- 10: a resurrection of the AR-10 7.62mm rifle. This was somewhat after Knight’s came out with their SR25 rifle. Another landmark event was about to take place for Westrom when he purchased the rights and trade mark of ArmaLite. The new company was called ArmaLite, Inc., with Eagle Arms being a subsidiary of that company.

Westrom had some choices to make with his M-10. The first one was a given – now the rifle could legitimately be called the ArmaLite AR-10. The next series of questions was how he should go about designing it. The first option was to go off the original prints. This had two problems. First was the rifle would look very strange and out of place compared to the current M16-series rifles. Secondly, many advancements had taken place over these intervening years with the evolution of the M16 series and those improvements could not readily be implemented on the original caliber design. The original AR-10 was never a finalized combat ready design. Once it was adopted it would go through a development process to get it ready for issue: all those things that Ordnance Corps neglected to do with the M16 development during the Vietnam War. The next option for Westrom was to redesign it from the ground up. Westrom was up for the challenge but with the development of the SR25, another option needed to be entertained. If Westrom was to base his AR-10 off the Stoner designed SR25, he could tap into a new market. By keeping interchangeability with the SR25 on the major components, he would have a secondary market for the new AR-10 rifles parts. So the third was the option chosen. Westrom kept the upper receiver, bolt and bolt carrier interchangeable with the SR25. But the lower would be different as well as an entirely different design principal from Knight’s.

Knight was, and still is to this day, first and foremost a defense contractor with limited commercial sales. When Stoner developed the SR25, he wanted to keep as much interchangeability/parts commonality with the M16A2 as possible (60%). With military logistics and resupply being what they are, this only made sense. Westrom felt that several of the componentsused on the SR25 were not sufficientlystrong enough for use in the 7.62mm rifle. Westrom felt he would design this as a 7.62mm caliber rifle and parts interchangeability would not be a priority. The first rifle to be introduced by ArmaLite would be their AR-10A2, the infantry rifle.

The AR-10A2 “The Infantry Rifle”

It is necessary to look at the time period when the AR-10A2 came out. This was while the main U.S. battle rifle, the M16A2, still utilized iron combat sights. Today, iron sights (fixed) seem to be outdated. With the adoption of the Swan/ NATO Mil-Std-1913 rail and the plethora of hi-tech optics and accessories, the old reliable iron sights are now more so thought of as back-up sights. Even though the M16A2 is still in production for the U.S. military, flat top M16A4 rifles seem to be taking over. The original AR-10 rifle was designed when iron sights were standard and troops were taught how to use them, and use them well.

The AR-10A2 utilizes the fully adjustable rear sight which is adjustable for elevation as well as windage and is adjusted without the need for any tools. The elevation increments were set for the trajectory of the standard 7.62x51mm M80 ball cartridge. If someone is comfortable and accustom to the M16A2, they will be right at home with the AR-10A2. The AR-10A2 is likened to an M16A2 on steroids. The front sight is the standard 4 position square sight.

The upper receiver, like the original AR- 10/AR-15, does not have the forward assist assembly. The weapon system was developed by Stoner to function as is and there was no need for a mechanical device to drive the bolt closed if it fails to lock.He felt (as does the M14 operator’s manual) that you do not force a cartridge into the chamber. You remove it and chamber a new cartridge. Forcing the bolt closed is more likely to cause a more serious malfunction than to prevent it. This is why the original AR-10, the Stoner developed SR-25 and the new AR-10A2 do not have one. Westrom has been asked for it and always explains to his customers why it is a bad idea.

The AR-10A2 has the M16A2 rifle’s fired cartridge case deflector. The fired cartridge case deflector is a pyramid shaped deflector that is part of the forging right behind the ejection port. Using high speed photography, research showed that as cyclic rate increases, the ejection pattern shifts rearward. This is what will cause fired cartridge cases to strike left handed shooters in the face. The original deflector rib used on the early AR-10 and AR-15 was sufficient with lower cyclic rate (caused by powder type) but as more Ball powders began to be used, the deflector rib did not extend out far enough to deflect the fired cartridge case. The new deflector extended out much further than that of the original deflector rib. The fired cartridge case strikes the rib and either bounces forward off the deflector or deflects it so it will not come in contact with the face of a left handed shooter.

The handguards used are the standard M16A2 handguards that ArmaLite offers in both black and the ArmaLite trademark green furniture. The rifle uses the standard A2-style canted slip ring. The front sight tower is another innovation of ArmaLite. Rather than the conventional drilled and staked front sight assembly, Westrom chose one that is held on with set screws. The purpose of using set screws was to allow the rifle’s front sight base to be shifted to zero the front sight for windage, while at the same time leaving the rear sight mechanically zero/centered in the rear sight base. The original rifles, in order to be Assault Weapon Ban compliant, had no bayonet lug. With the sunset of the ban in 2004, Westrom resumed production of standard front sight assemblies with bayonet lugs. Newer models are now staked in place on the AR-10A2 rifle but the other models retain the set screw front sight assemblies.

The 20-inch AR-10A2 barrel is chrome plated with a manganese phosphate finish.The barrel has a 1 turn in 12 inch rifling twist, which will stabilize all military grade 7.62mm NATO ammunition. The barrel has been improved throughout the years. All of Westrom’s weapons are works in progress: they are constantly improved and updated. The earlier rifles used M16-type barrel extensions. In 2004, ArmaLite made a product enhancement to the AR-10 rifles utilizing M4-type extended feed ramps in both the barrel extension and upper receiver. The standard M16 rifle gas tube is one of the components that Westrom felt would not be sufficient for use in the AR- 10. The standard gas tube would only be inserted about half way into the carrier key on the bolt carrier and Westrom felt this could cause unnecessary gas leakage. He extended the length of the gas tube so itwould seat to the rear of the key to ensure a better gas seal.

Also in compliance with the assault weapon ban, ArmaLite provided their AR- 10A2 rifles with muzzle brakes because they could not use the politically incorrect flash supressor/compensator. The first generation muzzle brake had three gas escape vents on the right and left side. It was later replaced with a muzzle brake with two vents. Current post Sept 14, 2004 rifles utilize a proper M16A2-style muzzle brake. Of course there are many aftermarket types that can be used as well. All earlier versions utilized a heavy barrel from end to end. Newer production rifles utilize a lighter barrel from the muzzle to the front of the front sight assembly thereby assisting with making the rifle a little less muzzle heavy.

The bolt carrier group has gone through much evolution since the original. In Stoner’s original design, the gas tube ran along the left side of the barrel from the front sight into the left side of the bolt carrier group. Later, ArmaLite made a design change that placed the gas tube on top of the barrel where it remains to this day in both the 5.56 and 7.62mm weapons. By the time Artillerie-Inrichtingen went into production, these modifications had already been made. The weapon was originally charged from a handle that was inside the carrying handle and the original carrier group was all chrome plated. They utilized a cam pin as well as the standardtype extractor and ejector. The firing pin was free floated and held in place by a machined steel retaining pin. The multi lug bolt had lineage to one designed by Melvin Johnson. The actual mechanics of how the assembly works has not changed for more than 40+ years.

When Stoner went to work on his SR25 rifle, he applied many of the advancements made in the 5.56mm rifles throughout the years while retaining his signature chrome plating of the bolt and carrier. He utilized the standard M16 carrier key. The firing pin retaining pin was one of the most significant enhancements. Stoner redesigned it to be “soldier proof,” making the pin captive so it would not be lost during field cleaning. Westrom kept both the bolt and carrier compatible at the sub level. However, Westrom went with the more durable and proven manganese phosphate finish. Inside, the bolt carrier and key are chrome plated. He also went with a larger cotterstyle firing pin retainer pin. The firing pin is where ArmaLite went off the reservation of tradition. The original AR-10 rifle was designed to work with Mil-Spec M80 7.62mm Ball. Most all automatic weapons prior to the AR-10 had free floating firing pins. The primers were hard enough that inertia of the firing pin, from a closing and locking of the bolt would not cause the weapon to slam fire. However, in commercial and law enforcement applications of the AR-10, the rifles would have to be compatible with commercial .308 Winchester ammunition. Commercial production primers are not made to the same hardness specification of military ones, so when firing many different types of commercial ammunition, the rifle would slam fire. Westrom took the most logical and simplest road to correction by added a firing pin spring to prevent the slam fire condition. The ArmaLite extractor assembly had gone through many updates and continues to do so to this day. In fact, one of the most criticized components of the AR-10/ AR-15/M16 weapon systems is the extractor. Due to the design, there is but a very small compartment for the extractor spring to function. The thickness and diameter of the spring has been taken to the max. This part does wear out quicker than pretty much any part of the weapon. The first major enhancement to the ArmaLite extractor was the addition of the internal plastic buffer. This has been standard on military M16’s since the mid-1970s. This buffer kept the extractor spring straight and offered additional force. The next major change was to come out of USSOCOM at Crane during their M4 reliability enhancement programs. They developed a rubber O-ring that slid over the existing extractor spring/buffer. This 10¢ piece of rubber increased the extractor force by a factor of 4. The O-ring has been in use with SOCOM for several years and only a few years ago was finally authorized by the big Army as a reliability enhancement. The newest enhancement offered by ArmaLite, specifically for their AR-10 carbines, is another embedded extractor that fits inside the original. This is in conjunction with the rubber O-ring. As with the 5.56mm weapons, the shorter carbines/shorter gas tubes increase the cyclic rate of the weapon. The bolt is opening sooner while larger amounts of residual pressure exist in the cartridge case. Thus, the extractor is pulling out a cartridge that is still somewhat stuck to the chamber. This increases the fatigue in the extractor springs.

The lower receiver is what takes a good departure from the original AR-10 and SR- 25 design. Westrom went with an M16- type 7175-T74 aluminum forging. Westrom paid particular attention to give a clean, familiar, M16A2-style look to his rifle. This includes the magazine release button fence as well as the co-witness selector marks on the right side. The bolt catch was another part of the AR-10 that he felt the M16A2 bolt catch was not strong enough to halt the massive 7.62 caliber bolt group. So Westrom re-designed the bolt to have more mass and to be significantly more robust. ArmaLite has just come out with another enhancement to the bolt catch that would go with a newly developed ArmaLite magazine.A standard M16 rifle stock and buffer extension are used. Again, they are offered in black or ArmaLite green.

Of all the unique aspects of the AR- 10A2, or any other of ArmaLite’s AR-10 rifles, the magazine would have to be the most interesting. The chosen magazine system was based on many reasons but the driving reason was due to the assault weapon ban that prevented manufacturers from producing high capacity magazines. The original AR-10 magazines and the Knight magazines worked incredibly well and were definitely the preferred choice. But due to the timing, original magazines were rare if not impossible to find and Knight magazines were extremely rare and, when found, quite pricey. Westrom wanted all his customers to have affordable high capacity magazines. With the limited availability of the standard magazines, he needed an alternative. Due to the decommissioning of the M14 rifles many years ago, there were huge stocks of military 20-round magazines. They were reasonably priced and very well designed. So Westrom set out with his engineers to make the M14 magazines work in his AR-10 series rifles. By modifying the feed lip angles and the magazine well, the winning combination was achieved, though the follower had to be replaced for the magazine to actuate the bolt catch. Due to the fact there was no rib on the rear of the M14 magazine that would guide the follower and provide the surface that would engage the bolt catch, Westrom had to come up with a follower design that would operate the bolt catch. The design was a spring loaded plunger with a guide cut in the back of the magazine that would allow the plunger to extend rearward prior to the last shot being fired. When the last cartridge is fired and the bolt carrier group moves all the way rearward, the plunger lifts up the bolt catch locking the bolt to the rear. This modification was made by sending the magazines into ArmaLite or update kits were provided to gunsmiths. Now with the assault weapon ban lifted, ArmaLite designed their own magazine. This new magazine would of course be compatible with all previous weapons and based off the M14 magazine design. But a rib was manufactured into the rear of the magazine to accommodate the new follower. The new follower works similar to that of the standard AR-10 or SR- 25, where the rear of the magazine raises the bolt catch into engagement. ArmaLite did develop a new bolt catch for this magazine. Studies conducted by ArmaLite showed that more than 90% of the previously made rifle’s bolt catches would engage the new magazine. But even 90% is not good enough for Westrom and he makes the improved bolt catches available for weapons that need it to function with the new magazines.

With today’s combat conditions and new technology, iron sights seem primitive. But to many combat veterans they are still the most viable of all sights. They are impervious to weather, heat, humidity, water submersion and mud. They do not, under normal conditions, get knocked out of alignment. The AR-10A2 keeps the spirit and intent of the original AR-10. The original intent for the rifle was primary iron sights with the ability to mount optics. ArmaLite offers a variety of AR-10 rifles including the modern Mil-Std-1913 flat top upper receiver. However, sometimes going back to the basics leads to the most overall sound weapon system. The AR-10A2 is just that. With recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the long range capability of the 7.62x51mm cartridge could be exploited and this is the perfect rifle to do it. Whether with optics or iron sights, the old design is truly state-of-the-art. This 50 year young rifle, as well as this family of weapons, will serve the U.S. and allies for many years to come. The legacy and the continuing success of the AR-10/AR- 15 series rifles is a tribute to Gene Stoner and his dedicated team of designers who, in the 1950s, were just too far advanced in the small arms world and they did not have the insight to see that Stoner truly did develop “tomorrow’s rifle today.” It is true that Gene Stoner lived to see his initial design used as the downsized AR- 15 /M16/M4 series of weapons utilized by millions of soldiers and police officers around the world. However, it is only tragic that he did not live to see that the initial 7.62mm concept of the AR-10 has gone full circle and equips the most advanced troops in the world, and has achieved much fame and popularity.

By Kevin Dockery

Few firearms manufacturers have proven themselves as successful as the Knight’s Armament Company (KAC). In just 25 years, C. Reed Knight, Jr. has taken his company from being a modest but skilled R&D shop into a unique modern military supplier. The structures that have held the shops and offices of KAC have changed from being a small two-story building in an orange grove to a sprawling complex of buildings, bunkers, and range facilities with the main plant having more than 400,000 square feet of work space.

The new location of the Knight’s Armament Company is in the old McDonnell Douglas Astronautics facility on Columbia Blvd. in Titusville, Florida. The Titusville plant is only a relatively short drive from central Florida and the huge convention center at Orlando. It is when the SHOT Show is at the Orlando center, such as it was this year, that KAC takes advantage of their facility’s location, and the invited guests of Mr. Reed Knight can take advantage of his own style of southern hospitality.

Even in the middle of January, central Florida can be a hot place, especially for writers and guests who have come down from the colder (much colder!) northern climes and countries. The well-upholstered and air-conditioned transportation put on by Knight’s made the afternoon trip to Titusville a quick and comfortable one. The crowds from the buses were filled out even further once at the plant by the number of people who arrived in their own vehicles. Any way you had arrived, the trip was well worth the time with what was waiting for everyone at Knight’s.

After a quick organization, and the filling out of the more and more common legal forms and releases, the writer community and dignitaries were invited to try out a number of products from both KAC as well as other manufacturer’s. It was trigger time again.

When the Shot Show was last in Orlando a few years ago, Reed Knight held his first open house at the Titusville facility. At that time, the primary guest of honor was General Mikhail Kalashnikov himself and an extensive demonstration was put on of the Knight Armament’s line of products. This year, the open house was a much larger affair and General Kalashnikov was unable to attend. Even the good general might feel that he missed out as instead of witnessing the Knight products, writers and others were invited to try them out for themselves.

Just moving around the huge facility was an event in itself with vans moving groups of people from one firing site to another. Part of the reason for this was the different ranges needed for the other companies that were also taking part in the KAC open house.

The first of the ranges visited was the close-in firing demonstration held by Lewis Machine & Tool Company of their M16 variations. One of the highlights at this position was a chance to fire the CQB version of their Monolithic Rail Platform upper chambered for the powerful 6.8mm round. Having seen combat with Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan, the 6.8mm round with its heavier bullet is proving to be a valuable asset, one worthy of further examination. With the radical rail system patented by LMT and machined out of a solid aluminum forging, the strength of the system is phenomenal, and the accuracy that comes with that strength is also world-class.

The LMT 6.8mm upper Close Quarters Battle specimen available for the demonstration was quick to handle while remaining controllable, even on full automatic fire. The future of the 6.8mm round is still vague at best. But no matter the caliber, Lewis Machine & Tool has a winner in their solid Monolithic Rail Platform uppers as well as their own line of receivers and complete weapons.

Transport took the groups finished with shooting at the first range to the next open range where a new line of rifles from Knight’s Armament were waiting for use. Even though we were all looking forward to examining the new weapons, it was hard not to be impressed with the layout and facilities of the Titusville compound. There were rows and rows of huge concrete and earth bunkers, leftovers from the days that McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Company loaded up Dragon missiles on the site. The massive bunkers would hold up to the ignition of enough ammunition to satisfy the most jaded of SAR readers, while still leaving enough room to outfit a small country – or shoot up on a Knob Creek weekend. If there is an expansion into heavy ordnance in Knight’s future, the Titusville facility has more than enough assets on hand to take care of any job short of making solid-fuel space-shuttle engines.

At the next range were some very familiar weapons, with new twists that were not immediately apparent. The SR-15 series of rifles and carbines are upgraded AR-15 style rifles with a number of improved features developed by Knight engineers. On the table were a pair of SR-15 E3 URX (Upper Receiver Extending) carbines, both with KAC folding iron sights and attached Harris bipods. Inside, the carbines boasted dual extractor springs, redesigned locking lugs with increased strength, and a number of other new and patented features. The overall design of the SR-15 proved such and improvement over the original design that it was adopted as the basis for a heavy-barreled 5.56mm sniper rifle, the Mark 12 Mod 1 Special Purpose Rifle. The URX E3 carbines were to prove only slightly less accurate, and nearly two pounds lighter, than the GI Mk 12 Mod 1 rifle, but at the short range available to the shooters at that table, the guns showed themselves to be more than adequate.

It was at the last range that the wait was longest to fire the weapons, and the reason was obvious enough. To a long-gun shooter, the last range area held a real treat. On the benches were premier examples of the KAC engineers, and the lasting legacy of Eugene Stoner.

Seven years ago, the Navy SEALs adopted a modified version of the SR-25 rifle as their new semiautomatic 7.62mm sniper rifle – the Mark 11 Mod 0, a replacement for the venerable M14-based sniper weapons still in the racks. On the bench was a single example of a Mk 11 Mod 0 rifle, set up with both a sophisticated electro-optical sight and a long Knight-produced sound suppressor. The optics was a CS6000 thermal imaging sight capable of detecting human activity out to a range of 2,200 meters. All-in-all, a very serious weapons system.

Lined up next to the Mk 11 were the two newest versions of the SR-25, the recently adopted XM110 U.S. Army Semi-Auto Sniper Rifle System (SASS). The XM110 has a twenty-inch match grade 1:11 twist heavy barrel, as does the Mk 11. But the muzzle of the XM110 barrel is threaded to accept a flash suppressor. The trendy desert tan color of the XM110 rifles also made them stand out, but all the weapons shared the same basic characteristic – long range accuracy combined with a quick follow-up firing capability.

Firing some of the best weapons available might prove enough for most to spend an afternoon away from the Shot Show. But Reed Knight’s rendition of southern hospitality required that he offer much more. Underneath huge tents in the parking area near the main building were set up long rows of tables, just what were needed to partake of the excellent barbeque served up by the caterers. Keeping with the overall country-western theme of the day, Reed Knight, along with his staff and sons, were wearing western outfits, complete down to Colt single-action revolvers riding in low-draw holsters. In the background was both a mechanical bull for the more adventurous among the guests, as well as a much safer Country-Western band, the Bama Band, who were twice nominated for the Academy of Country Music’s Band of the Year Award and were for 20-plus years the touring band for superstar Hank Williams, Jr., that fired up their music in the sunset hours.

But it was the tour of the KAC main plant that really drew the crowds. On the plant floor were Mazak machining centers – quarter-million dollar chunks of computer-controlled precision. And there were rows of the big machines stretching out across the plant floor. Each machining center is capable of turning out identical parts for as long as needed, and then they can be reprogrammed to produce other components with a minimum of fuss, given skilled staff. And Knight’s Armament has 300 personnel making up that skilled staff manning the 400,000 square feet of floor space.

To help the production machines make their parts at KAC is a new Fanuc robotic arm. The bright yellow arm was twisting and turning through a complicated measuring protocol, dancing the same moves over and over for the on-looking crowd.

On the production floor, rack after rack was filled with parts in various stages of manufacture. The area was quiet for the open house, but the bins and racks of parts stood in mute testimony of the demand for Knight’s components and assemblies to aid the United States and the Global War on Terrorism.

There is something to be said for the success of a design when you see hundreds and hundreds of parts to make up the Knight Rail Adapter Systems (RAS) that are seen on many of the weapons serving in the hands of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The basic idea for the RAS came to Reed Knight when he watched footage of our troops in Grenada back in 1983. A long-time competitive shooter, Reed saw the guns in the hands of our troops with flashlights duct-taped to the forearms. Knowing that there had to be a better way to secure the illumination and aiming devices desired and needed by the troops, Knight and his engineers came up with the rail system, now used in every branch of the service.

Other components for successful Knight designs filled the bins on the floors and tables, but it was the second floor that held the crown-jewels of the tour. The Knight firearms library holds an extensive collection of weapons for study, many of them museum-class specimens in their own right. Taken as a whole, the library of firearms can easily compete with a number of large weapons museums around the world. Only these weapons are for study to help develop new designs to keep American arms technology in the lead for many of the world’s militaries. The Knight Working Reference Collection is incredible to experience.

The large number of guests at the open house had to be broken up into smaller groups to go through the plant and finally visit the collection. Since a number of unauthorized photographs of part of the collection have been posted on the Internet, cameras are strictly forbidden for the visitors to the collection. For the readers of SAR, Reed Knight graciously allowed this writer to bring a camera into parts of the collection to illustrate this article.

In the hallway leading up to the main room housing the bulk of the library, glass walls show the interiors of two side rooms housing two very special collections.

With justifiable pride, Reed Knight stood in front of the E. M. Stoner Memorial Gallery. Not just any firearms were contained in the gallery, it was a tribute to the firearms genius and hard work of Eugene Stoner, a designer and engineer well known to any who study the art of modern weapons. On the walls of the gallery were unique specimens of Stoner’s designs, most of them one-of-a-kind prototypes.

Opposite of the Stoner gallery was another room holding the examples of the products and weapons made by Reed Knight and his people over the years. A centerpiece of the KAC Shot Show booth was 6x35mm KAC Personal Defense Weapon. On the walls of the gallery were specimens of that weapon along with a number of others. When Reed was asked which of the pieces was his favorite, he reached over and pulled down a Mk 11 rifle, a particularly beat up and badly damaged piece.

The reason for Reed’s pride in that particular rifle? It had taken its damage in combat, serving in the very capable hands of a Navy SEAL.

SAR would like to thank Reed Knight and his son Trey, as well as their staff, for the wonderful opportunities they have afforded the small arms community in the past years, and to salute their commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and future development in small arms. The Knights have helped countless designers, writers and researchers over the years, and the readers of many firearms magazines, especially Small Arms Review, have benefited from this commitment to academic research. During the event at Knight’s, over 1,400 people experienced the hospitality and received a good old fashioned Barbecue in addition to their test firing demonstrations and tour of the plant and the Knight Collection. Those who toured the Collection were treated to explanations and anecdotes from Reed, Trey, George Kontis, Col. David Lutz and other employees of Knight’s, and SAR’s Dan Shea was also drafted/volunteered to serve as a guide for several tours as well. It was clear that everyone involved was proud, and indeed humbled, to help the attendees experience the amazing depth and focus of the Knight Collection. Again, SAR would like to thank the Knight’s for their generosity in sharing the history and knowledge they maintain in their Collection, and indeed, for keeping the torch alive in an age when political correctness has threatened our national security by chiseling away at our martial knowledge.

On March 30, 1964, Cadillac Gage received order SS-22 for 60 rifles and 20 complete systems from ARPA, The large order was for weapons to be tested by the US Marine Corps. The Marines had been suitably impressed with the Stoner system and ARPA had agreed with their request to field test the new weapon.

Marine enthusiasm for the Stoner was well received and they took in some of the earliest weapons made. Stoner 63’s, serial numbers 00004 and 00005 are still maintained in the Marine Corps Museum’s small arms collection. Springfield Armory also ordered two fixed Stoner 63s during the Spring of 1964 for test purposes.

In May the Aberdeen Proving Grounds report on the Stoner was made to the Army. In July, the Office of the Chief of Research and Development made his report on the Stoner to ARPA. Neither of these reports listed the weapon in glowing terms. This situation is hardly surprising given that the Army had just recently been forced to accept a number of AR-15 rifles.

The leadership at Cadillac Gage still thought the future of the Stoner 63 looked promising. The manufacture of the weapon centered around sheet metal stamping, forming, and precision welding. The California Cadillac Gage facilities were inadequate to the task of mass producing the new weapon but the company also had a manufacturing facility in Detroit where the mechanical support for such manufacture was easily available. Detroit was the center of the automobile industry and the precision forming and welding of sheet metal was a common practice for such manufacture.

In September, 1964, after some 234 Stoner 63s had been produced and serial numbered, Cadillac Gage moved the production of the weapon to their facilities in Michigan. The Arms Development and Engineering staff, Eugene Stoner among them, moved to the newly set up Weapons Manufacturing Facilities in Roseville, Michigan, just north of Detroit. At this time, the wooden stocks and pistol grips on the Stoner 63 were changed. Grips and stocks were now made of polycarbonate plastic, though the forestock for the machine gun configuration remained black-painted wood.

General Wallace Green, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, had been impressed with the idea of the Stoner family of weapons. This may have come about in no small part due to Cadillac Gage hiring a newly retired Marine Colonel who, during the end part of his military career, spoke to General Green convincingly on the advantages such a system offered to the Corps. Colt at the time, was offering what they called a family of weapons based on the AR-15. But the Colt weapon system, the CAR-15, was made up of specific firearms which could not be interchanged easily. This did not meet some of the advantages of the Stoner 63.

The situation did start to look very good for the future of the Stoner 63 system in 1965. On 23 April 1965, the Army Weapons Command put in an order for 861 Stoner weapons in various configurations for testing as part of the new Small-Arms Weapons Systems (SAWS) program. Within just a few days of this purchase order being issued, the Marine Corps Landing Force Development center (MCLFDC) test report was delivered to Marine Corps Headquarters.

The MCLFDC report recommended the Stoner 63 for further, more advanced, field testing. This report helped fuel the enthusiasm for the Stoner 63 among the Corps Command and Marine Corps Commandant General Wallace Greene in particular. This situation was not well received by the Army Weapons Command who strongly disliked the new AR-15 rifle over the M14 rifle. For the Army, it was now looking like the Marine Corps was going to push for another, completely different, .223 caliber weapon that also could compete with the still new M60 machine gun.

On 20 December, 1965, the Marine Corps put in an order for 1,080 Stoner rifles as well as the parts necessary to assemble other configurations of the weapon. Extensive testing of the Stoner system by the Marine Corps did indicate some weaknesses in the system that needed correction. In the first several months of 1966, these weaknesses were identified and brought to the attention of Cadillac Gage.

While the modification problem was being addressed, the Marine Corps continued their testing of the Stoner 63 system. results from the field were varied, but in general, the weapon system was well liked by many of the men employed in testing it. Substantial tactical and logistical advantages were found in using the system by the evaluation groups. Testers included one rifle company, a platoon of the division reconnaissance battalion, and a platoon of the force reconnaissance company.

An almost immediate change to the fielding of the Stoner weapons system during evaluations was the dropping of the automatic rifle configuration. It was found that the automatic rifle was the least dependable of all of the Stoner 63 configurations. This was due to the top-loading magazine feed used in the automatic rifle. It was found during Marine testing that every time the automatic rifle was loaded, any sand, dirt, or foreign material in the magazine was poured directly into the receiver. With the open bolt of the automatic rifle configuration, this material jammed the action causing an unacceptable number of stoppages.

The remainder of the Stoner 63 weapons system was evaluated by the Marine Corps during March, April, and May, 1967. A comparison testing of the new M16E1 was conducted by the same test groups during June and July of that same year. Test results were tabulated and the report made at the end of August that same year.

Testing showed the Stoner rifle had the advantages of weight, accuracy, improved ammunition, and compatibility with other weapons (the balance of the 63 system), when compared to the standard M14 rifle. The Stoner rifle was found to have a lower reliability than the M14, but this problem was considered correctable with modifications. The difference in reliability between the Stoner 63 and the M14 was not considered significant when considering the overall advantages of the entire system. When compared to the M16E1, the Stoner 63 Rifle was found to be more accurate, more reliable, and had a family of weapons that it was compatible with.

The Stoner light and medium machine gun configurations also received high recommendations by the majority of Marine testers. The Stoner light machine gun was considered a suitable replacement for the automatic rifle configuration in the Marine rifle squad. The LMG and MMG were found to be highly reliable when compared to any other machine gun in the Marine testing environment.

The Marine testing was extensive. Boot Camp trainees were issued with the Stoner and completed their training cycle with it, in the process scoring higher during weapons qualifications than any comparable Marine unit. Stoners were taken into limited combat in Vietnam, where the design was proven to be accurate and reliable in the jungle environment.

The results of the first major Marine Corps evaluation of the Stoner 63 weapons system were very positive. In the words of the evaluation committee;

3. The basic conclusions of the evaluation are that the Stoner family of weapons provides substantial tactical and logistics advantages. There are some relatively minor modifications required prior to acceptance but none of these appears to create any problem. The system received a high degree of acceptance from personnel involved.

4. The Stoner Weapons System is strongly recommended for adoption.

Some of the difficulties with the Stoner 63 had been addressed by Cadillac Gage prior to the evaluations being run by the Marine Corps. The order for evaluation weapons put forward by the Marine Corps in December 1965, had been filled with the available Stoner 63s. The redesign of the Stoner 63 to the Stoner Model 63A was completed in March 1966. Changes from the Stoner 63 to the 63A configuration include;

a. Larger gas port opening b. Chromium plated chamber c. Stronger and better fitting dust covers d. A relieved breech block cam pin e. A gas nitrided bore f. Separate safety in front of trigger guard g. Feed tray machined casting instead of stamped metal h. Three position gas port valve i. Redesigned stock and forearm of polycarbonate material j. Three piece cleaning rod fitted inside of forearm k. ENDURION metal finish on all exposed surfaces l. Bipod locks onto weapon or locks open for stowage m. Right side belt feed mechanism available, exchanges w/left side feed n. Over-the-shoulder assault sling available o. Upper sling swivel attached to front of barrel handle

The removable trigger guard of the Stoner 63, intended for using the weapon when wearing gloves or mittens and easily lost during testing, was replaced with a permanently attached trigger guard. The size of the plastic ammunition box that could be hung onto the side of the light machine gun was reduced from 150 round to 100 rounds. It was found that the larger box was easily struck by the users leg when patrolling and could be knocked off the weapon.

Other changes to the system included replacing the folding stock of the carbine with a wire folding stock that had considerably fewer parts. The cocking handle of the Stoner 63 was the same for all of the weapons in the system. A perforated length of handle with an outward curved end extended along the side of the handguard, right over the gas tube. On the rifle/carbine versions of the Stoner 63, this handle was on the upper left side of the weapon, above the forestock. On the machine gun versions, the cocking handle was at the lower right side of the weapon, just behind the forestock.

For the rifle and carbine versions of the Stoner 63A, the cocking handle had been completely changed from the original. A small lug had been welded onto the operating rod, several inches behind the piston head. The new cocking handle was located on top of the receiver, over the barrel and handguard, where it could be reached by the operator with either hand easily. The new cocking lever rode along a slot cut into the receiver, just below the gas tube, and engaged the lug welded onto the operating rod. A plunger in the center of the operating handle could be pushed down by the operator and used to push the bolt forward to assist it to close.

For the machine gun versions of the Stoner 63A, the cocking lever engaged the new lug on the bottom of the operating rod, but was otherwise in the same place as in the earlier system. The machine gun cocking rod had been made longer so that it could be more easily reached.

The feed cover of the machine gun had been improved in both strength, manufacture, and function. The cap carrier had been redesigned to include a spring plunger mechanism. In the Stoner 63A, the feed cover could be closed with the bolt in any position while in the Stoner 63 the feed cover could only be closed with the bolt in the cocked position to insure no damage to the weapon.

Another change to the feed system of the Stoner 63A was the development of a drum carrier for the ammunition belt. The final drum design would hold a 150 round ammunition belt securely to the bottom of the weapon and feed the belt in smoothly while firing. The drum was made of spun aluminum to keep weight to a minimum and was securely attached to the receiver of the 63A.

To help keep the system from being jammed by excess dirt, spring loaded covers were placed over both the ejection port of the receiver and the link ejection port on the feed cover. The ejection port cover on the receiver would spring open and remain that way as soon as the bolt carrier moved. The cover over the link ejection port only opened when a link was being ejected and otherwise remained closed.

The gas tube of the 63A was made from 17-4 PH stainless steel to minimize corrosion and giving the new tube a silver outside finish. The inside of the gas tube of the 63A was remachined to prevent carbon build up from jamming the gas piston. This allowed the 63A to fire for longer periods of time between cleanings of the gas system. From roughly serial number 2,000, all Stoners produced by Cadillac Gage were built as 63A’s. No changes were incorporated in the markings Cadillac Gage stamped into the receivers of their Stoners and all weapons remained marked “Stoner 63”.

The large number of improvements in the Stoner 63A system made the weapon of even greater interest to the Marine Corps. On 3 October, 1966, Cadillac Gage received an order from the Marine Corps to modify 286 weapons to the new 63A configuration. The new weapons were scheduled for extensive testing under combat conditions in Vietnam. This combat test series was to be completed by May 31, 1967.

On March 3, 1967, a further order was received from the Marine Corps, this one for an additional 8 weapons to be converted to the 63A model. These additional weapons were intended for further testing under controlled conditions to confirm the field trial results. The tests did confirm what had been determined by most of the Marine users. The Stoner 63A was considered suitable for Marine Corps use without further testing.

Cadillac Gage received a further order from the Marine Corps on 19 April, 1967, for ammunition linking systems and spare parts for the overseas support of the 286 63A systems in Marine Corps hands. But shortly after this order was received, the Army Weapons Command declared the Stoner 63 and 63A to not be acceptable for issue at the time.

Without much fanfare, all of the Stoners in Marine hands were to be turned in. The Army was still interested in the Stoner 63A as a light machine gun, but only as a low-priority project. Army tests of the Stoner to approve the system for procurement were considered extremely biased. But for whatever reason, the question of the Stoner in Marine hands was over by the middle of 1967.

In 1951 Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, U.S. Army, wrote about the relationship between small arms weapons and the men who used them during the Korean winter campaigns of 1950-51. General Marshall wrote of two prominent observations concerning weapon usage: 1. Troops in combat are reluctant to use something new unless a reliable, respected source tells them it’s better than to what they are accustomed, and 2. Nothing reinforces acceptance better than personal experience.1 Sixteen years later Lima Company demonstrated that something as personal as exchanging one’s tried and true individual weapon in combat for a new, untried, and failing weapon could still be overcome and championed.

Lima Company was a no nonsense unit in the U.S. Marine tradition. We were aggressive, disciplined combat Marines with keen skills in tactics and fighting honed in combat. We were not an infantry school’s demonstration troops performing a rehearsed skit in front of a military-industry group of suits. The Marines were the same Marines they were before the arrival of the Stoners and its 5.56 ammunition. We thought of our small arms not as a weapon plus a bullet but as one component. Our expectation was that a round in the chamber of a weapon should respond to the strike of the firing pin by firing, always. The weapon and ammo were one. Thoroughly clean weapons were a given fact of unit survival. Equally accepted was the understanding that weapons in combat endure the ruggedness of battle as well as the Marine firing it. Both Marines and weapons get dirty, wet, slogged, beaten and maligned, and they will be cherished and loved. The dependable M14 Rifle, M60 Machinegun, and M1911A1 Pistol when so disposed still worked, and they would be our standard of comparison.

The relationship between a Marine and his weapon is ingrained in him starting at the recruit depots. His education manifests a subconscious belief in his issued weapon. In combat, acceptance changes from potential dependency to pragmatic affection. The popular press notion that combat Marines treat weapons with indifference and clean them occasionally and without concern for future dependability is ludicrous, but it is an impression left by repeated proclamation. Once one shoots his weapon at an armed enemy the bond is made. If the weapon works for him, the bond will grow stronger. The opposite is also just as true. To change the latter, Marine leadership emanating from known and respected sources will be the change agents, not written hype or a command from a multi-starred general, and certainly not from a political appointee or an elected official.

We would test five Stoner configurations: assault rifle, carbine, two light machinegun (LMG) types (magazine fed and the belt/box fed), and the medium machinegun (MMG). Officers and Staff Non-commissioned Officers (SNCO’s) were issued carbines. The rifles went to all Marines who previously were armed with M14 rifles, except some would be armed with the LMG magazine fed. The machinegun section of Weapons Platoon, consisting of three machinegun squads with two guns each, were armed with a mix of LMG and MMG.

In our test period the name Light Machine Gun, Magazine Fed and the Automatic Rifle referred to the same weapon type: the top loading magazine fed weapon. In the days leading up to Lima Company’s training in the Stoner system, we were to request the type and amount of weapons desired using our existing Table of Equipment as a guide. Of course that equipment was based upon the former weapons and not on a Stoner family of weapons, but it did provide a point of departure. Lima Company had nine rifle squads each with three fire teams, and each fire team consisted of four men with one of them armed with an M14 with a selector switch on automatic. There were twenty-seven fire teams in the company, and, therefore, twenty-seven M14’s configured to automatic. I ordered twenty-seven LMG’s, Magazine Fed to replace the twenty-seven automatic M14’s. However, one day prior to the commencement of training we were informed that the LMG, Magazine Fed/ Automatic Rifle would not be tested as it had been already determined to be reliable. In correspondence, that weapon was referred to then as the “Automatic Rifle.” Nevertheless and regardless of whatever name was in vogue, we did receive and fielded at least seven top loading magazine fed machine guns/automatic rifles. After about five weeks of combat usage we determined that this configuration was not necessary. Every Stoner weapon was easily capable of being an automatic weapon although we still held to the doctrine of one Stoner on automatic with three on semi-automatic per fire team. On April 4, 1967 those “Automatic Rifles” were turned in as superfluous.

As users of the weapons we were less interested in the engineering and revolutionary aspects of the hardware. Our concern was would it work – shoot fast and straight. We had a combat mission to perform, and the weapons were our basic tools. We needed to learn and learn quickly the particulars of these weapons: assembly, disassembly, maintenance, and functioning. Then we needed to “feel” the capability of these weapons, gain confidence in their reliability, and transfer our loyalty from something tried and true to something unknown and potentially untrue.

The Stoners were shown and demonstrated to the Marines. Within moments of first seeing and touching the weapons, the generalized apprehension melted away. These weapons, these Stoners, were immediately impressive. They were absolutely radical in design, function, and appearance to anything any of us had ever seen. There was something in their appearance alone that broke down skepticism; a sort of enchantment overcame us and brought on an air of excitement. “I want to fire that baby!” might be an apt exclamation. The absence of wood was most noticeable, followed by the perforated metal, the plastic, the pistol grip, the lightness, and the balance upon picking them up. Obviously, here for us now was something from the future.

Lima Company was to conduct a sixty-day trial of five of the Stoner family members. Eugene Stoner, for whom the weapons were named, designed a system that permitted reconfiguration of rifles and rifles into machineguns. The brilliant, self-taught engineer and designer while at ArmaLite designed most notably the AR10 and AR15 later designated the M16 rifle. In 1961 Mr. Stoner took his art to Cadillac Gage where he designed a family of weapons based on two major revolutionary concepts. These concepts became reality when Mr. Stoner produced his 62 system encompassing ease of interchangeability of parts between a weapon to make another weapon and a new gas operating system. One of the basis for these changes was in the receiver. With the receiver placed with the magazine well down, the weapon was a rifle or carbine capable of firing semi or full automatic. By turning the receiver upside down so that the magazine well was on top, the weapon became a machinegun. There were other steps and pieces of course. Nevertheless, the gas system required to operate a rate of fire from 660 to 750 rounds per minute coupled with the interchangeability of parts represented the heart of the Stoner 63A “family” concept of weapons.

A Marine training team from Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia conducted eighteen hours of formal classes in the austere, outdoor conditions of the battalion’s combat base and squad leaders conducted an additional six hours with their squads. Each Marine fired his weapon on a known distance range inside the battalion perimeter. The number of rounds fired was based upon the type of weapon and until the Marine was satisfied with the operation of his particular weapon. We had an adequate but limited supply of 5.56 Ball ammo. The minimum rounds fired per weapon per Marine was, carbines and rifles 250 rounds, automatic rifles fired 270, and both the light and medium machineguns fired 1000.4 Training went well. We were mentally and physically prepared to take the Stoners into combat. On 28 February 1967 Lima Company, now armed with the Stoner 63A weapons system, departed the battalion area and resumed combat patrols. The Stoner went to war.

The enemy quickly became aware of us and our new weapons due to the peculiar sound that 5.56 ammo made compared to the 7.62 that every other Marine rifle company in our area was using. The 5.56 had a high pitched buzzing sound. We were the only unit for many miles around that fired the 5.56 ammo. (The First Marine Division was in the process of changing from the M14 to the M16, but our battalion was scheduled to receive the M16 in April.

One of our patrols found an old house that served as a Viet Cong classroom, for on the wall was a detailed, accurate drawing of a Stoner rifle. Enemy activity was far from passive though. On 3 March Corporal Bill Pio’s second squad, second platoon, with Lance Corporal Dave Mains as radio operator, sighted enemy. The squad was on a daylight combat patrol when the point man, Lance Corporal Kevin Diamond, spotted several VC under a tree out to their front. The squad halted and Pio and Mains cautiously crawled up to Diamond’s position. Corporal Pio figured his plan, and as he started to deploy the squad, they were taken under fire. Both Pio and Diamond were seriously wounded while the squad opened up on a disappearing enemy. Following the medical evacuation of the two wounded Marines, someone noticed Mains’ equipment hanging off his cartridge belt under the radio. One of his canteens and two Stoner magazines were shot. The Stoner steel magazines loaded with bullets and the water filled canteen had deflected further penetration of the bullets preventing Lance Corporal Mains from wounds. He did retain and took home the bullet shattered steel magazines and canteen.

Our instructions relating to the conduct of the Stoner test included experimentation to include how the company’s organizational structure might adapt to the Stoner family of weapons and innovations by individual Marines. One such innovation came from the second platoon commander, Second Lieutenant William Wischmeyer. Prior to the Stoner tests, officers and SNCO’s carried pistols for self-defense. One primary reason for arming leaders with pistols is to keep them from becoming too involved in shooting so that they concentrate on directing Marines and their fire. Leaders are continuously involved in reading maps, directing artillery fire, radio communications, and generally shouting orders, waving arms, and pointing to direct movement. The carbine was carried in one’s hands instead of a holster making hand and arm signals difficult and automatically made leaders “quasi-rifleman.”

Lieutenant Wischmeyer quickly recognized the problem in command and control and took initiative to resolve it. He took several pieces of web gear, a blanket roll strap and a belt suspender with its spring clip, and made a sling that hooked onto the top of the wire stock carbines. The company executive officer, First Lieutenant Gran Moulder, remembered Lt. Wischmeyer was the butt of wise-cracks regarding this field improvisation called the “Wischmeyer sling.” The jokes did not last long as the utility of the sling quickly was recognized and adopted by every carbine-carrying member of the company. The jokes stopped and the Wischmeyer sling came to be called the jungle sling.

The jungle sling was criticized by a general officer for its unpolished appearance and a hindrance to sighting. The jungle sling permitted leaders the full use of their hands and arms which they needed more than to aim in and shoot a round or two. The Stoner Carbine was a finely balanced piece, and I carried mine using the jungle sling. The adjustable sling placed the pistol grip about waist level with the butt of the pistol grip facing rear, and permitted freedom of the hands. On occasion I would quickly drop my right hand down to the pistol grip while pushing down and forward bringing the muzzle smoothly to the horizon where my left hand would meet the front hand-guard as I leaned forward. The ammunition followed my right hand movement as if firing from my finger. The rounds just seemed to go where I willed them. It was the most amazing experience. The sling was a necessity. I disregarded the criticism. We kept using the Wischmeyer sling throughout the test period even after its designer was wounded and evacuated on 8 March. Lt. Wischmeyer’s nine-day contribution to the Stoner trial was significant.

After twelve days of patrolling, we returned to the battalion area where we replenished equipment, rested, and prepared for our next outing. We were required to maintain four reports, which we completed and analyzed inside the battalion compound. One of the reports was a “Malfunction Report.” I did not expect this report to be used very often. But it was. The Marines reported thirty-three malfunctions had occurred during this initial twelve days occurring across all five-weapon configurations. The most common were failures to feed, failures to fire, failures to eject, and failures to extract. Failure to fire struck me as most distressing. Primer caps were dented by firing pins and yet the rounds did not fire. Causes? Corrective action? Why were these malfunctions happening? Answers were not clear, but, all in all, the problems meant my Marines were not able to defend themselves. Frankly, this malfunction was difficult for me to accept. Despite these written reports, the Marines’ reaction to the Stoner remained favorable. Shortly thereafter, we returned to the field.

On March 15, the First Platoon Commander, Lt. Andres Vaart, sent out an ambush patrol just before the end of evening light. The patrol was armed with one M79 Grenade Launcher, two Stoner LMG’s, and two Stoner assault rifles set on automatic. As the patrol moved to its ambush site, it met a VC patrol moving towards the company’s patrol base and took them under fire. Of the four Stoner weapons in the patrol, only one rifle worked without malfunctioning, the other three experienced a multitude of problems. The one operating rifle, the M79, and hand grenades were used to drive off the well-armed VC patrol whose weapons were working well. Simultaneously, the company patrol base came under attack. This company action also revealed more malfunctioning weapons.

The Marines of Company L were now clearly saddled with a weapon that could not be counted on. My Marines seemingly could not depend on their individual weapons either to defend themselves or employ them in aggressive action. The malfunction problems needed resolution before any more patrols were activated. Under the present circumstances instead of looking for the enemy we were forced to concentrate on making the weapon work. I cancelled all further patrols that night and gathered all three platoons into one company perimeter. The Company Gunnery Sergeant, Gunnery Sergeant Bill McClain, cleared a space and designated it a firing line. Rotating one squad at a time we fired throughout the night checking each weapon and recording malfunctions taking remedial action where necessary and possible. Regardless of what we tried, no field remedy consistently resolved the problems. The same malfunctions found in the first twelve days were again the most common. I had to accept that our new weapons were not dependable. At first light, Lima Company maneuvered back to the battalion compound.

These Stoners were our weapons, and we had to make them work. We needed to resolve the problem ourselves. We knew more about the Stoners than anyone available did. We “Turned-To.” We reasoned that the primary causes of malfunctions included sand, lubrication, moisture, and ammunition. There was no way we could avoid sand and we definitely needed the ammunition. The problem to solve then became how does sand, moisture, and lubrication contribute to malfunctions and how to get rounds to fire. For better than two days inside the security of the battalion’s sand berm walls, we conducted our own methodical sub-trials.

The area we operated in was part of the South China Sea’s coastal plains. The sand was not course sand but very fine sand. We occasionally rode amphibious tractors that pulverized the sand with its tracks that turned fine sand to a talcum powder like consistency and lifted up and over the tops of the vehicles where we rode settling in on everything. In short order we were covered with white dust which would sift into every pore it could find on both weapons and men. We tried protecting our Stoner’s by wrapping them in green towels. Further, our everyday activities took us into the sand. We walked, ate, slept, and fought in this fine sand. Next to air it was the most prevalent natural element.

Another suggested condition, which came under immediate scrutiny, was noted three weeks earlier during familiarization firing. The moving parts in every configuration appeared to be too tightly machined. As we saw it and what we could address, the crux of the problem became tightly machined parts coupled with oiled sand affixed thereto created excessive friction.

Our basic answer was to shoot, shoot, shoot. Loosen them up. Each Marine shot hundreds of rounds through his personal weapon under the scrutiny of the platoon sergeants and squad leaders with the Company Gunnery Sergeant and First Sergeant George Bean’s watchful supervision. Every malfunction brought about a “Cease Fire” to the line while the malfunction was “eyeballed,” recorded, and cleared. It was a slow but necessary process. We began to make progress. Not only did the weapon malfunctions need to disappear, but also the confidence of each Marine had to soar. We looked for and found another Lot of ammunition.

On 18 and 19 March Lt. Michael Kelly’s5 Third Platoon rehearsed an attack plan scheduled for the near future while concurrently assessing the progress in our malfunction sub-trial. Each weapon (Assault Rifle, LMG. MMG, Automatic Rifle, and Carbine) was thoroughly cleaned and oiled in accordance with what each individual Marine knew about his weapon as a result of the firing tests. Then they crawled through the sand to a firing line and commenced firing 100 rounds each. Following this firing, they climbed aboard amphibious tractors, took a three mile ride across the sands, returning covered with fine talcum powder sand, disembarked, and scrambled back to the firing line where they commenced shooting another 100 rounds. When a malfunction occurred each individual needed to remedy it using his own knowledge.

Our concentration on the combination of sand, oil, and tolerances as the cause of malfunctions was paying dividends at this field-user level. Other things were also noted, but we could do little about those except to report and comment on what we thought might be occurring and what might be a solution. The ammo problem was greatly reduced following receipt of a new Lot of ammo. I was confident that we had loosened the moving parts and learned enough that the weapons were now dependable provided each Marine practiced his knowledge of his individual weapon. I trusted my Marines to act with wisdom. We returned to combat that night.

Our next ten days were markedly better. As usual we ran into the normal plethora of mines and booby traps along with our very successful ambush and combat patrols. We also captured two VC. Lima Company was back aggressively accomplishing its primary mission. Further, the concerns about Stoner reliability decreased significantly. By 3 April we reported that the weapons were “working very well.” I requested that the test period of sixty days be extended to ninety for a better trial. The request was approved.

During this ninety-day Stoner combat weapons’ trial both the Marines and the 63A’s were challenged. In addition to our daily combat patrolling, the company participated in four named battalion or larger combat operations between 28 February and 31 May, 1967. The 63A’s became less a test weapon and more our personal weapon changing from questionable reliability to pragmatic affection. Combat plans were made and executed without concern for weapon reliability, as it should be.

Combat is not a game, and any individual infantry Marine needs to “pounce and shoot” without a second of delay. In those first few weeks our Stoners barely made the grade. The discipline and mettle of some one hundred eighty Marines met the challenge head on and won. They led with their jaws, took a couple of hits, saw the problem, and made the weapons work for them. They experimented, innovated, and sought empirical proof. Were the malfunctions that Lima Company encountered due to the weapon or were they the result of factors outside the design and engineering? By the end of the first month we knew that the problems encountered earlier were not the fault of either design or engineering.

While engaged in daily combat, Lima Marines learned to respect, admire, and covet the Stoner 63A in all five configurations. For the third time in three months, in late May 1967 we again exchanged one personal weapon for another. This time, the Stoner for the M16A1, which already had earned an horrific reputation. Our Stoner experiences quickly transferred to the unreliable M16. Nevertheless, the Stoner had replaced the M14 as our standard, and the M16 never reached the Stoner bar.

Lieutenant Colonel Gibbs is writing a book on the Stoner 63A Weapons System, and would enjoy hearing from readers. Please send your comments to him via Small Arms Review, Attention: J. Gibbs.

• 1 S.L.A. Marshall, Infantry Operations & Weapons Usage in Korea, with a Preface by Edward C. Ezell, Greenhill Books, Lionel Leventhal Limited, Park House, 1 Russell Gardens, London, NW11 9NN, p. xiv, 14 and 54.
• 2 Commanding Officer, Company L, Third Battalion, First Marines, First Marine Division (Reinf), FMF, FPO, San Francisco, 96602 memorandum of 3 and 4 April 1967. (Short title: CO, L/3/1 plus date)
• 3 A very good overview of the workings of the Stoner weapons is described in Dan Shea’s article: Dan Shea, “The Stoner Chronicles, Part IV: The Crown Jewel,” Machine Gun News, May 1996, pp 41 and 42.
• 4 CO, L/3/1, 13 March 1967 memorandum “Stoner Report.”
• 5 The author is proud to note that both lieutenants Kelly and Wischmeyer were lieutenant colonels in the 1980’s and commanded the Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment.

By Jeff W. Zimba

Without a doubt, my favorite rifle is the AR-15. It is arguable that there are many others that perform better for specific tasks, but for an all around gun this brainchild of Eugene Stoner is a hard choice to beat. The number of new caliber conversions manufactured by Dalphon now opens the spectrum even more.

I have enjoyed the versatility of the AR family of rifles for many years. The number of configurations possible have always been limited only to ones imagination. My first one was an original Colt SP-1 with a pencil barrel and beavertail hand-guards. I stopped at a local gunshop with my buddy Tim and he looked it over for me. He started pushing pins and pulling parts, and eventually gave it the stamp of approval. He gave me a crash course in operation, care and maintenance, and the rest is now history.

Before this purchase, most of my firearms were more “traditional”. I grew up in the “gun culture” being surrounded with firearms of all sorts, but the vast majority were hunting rifles or target pistols. I always had an admiration for firearms and learned to shoot in the days before I was old enough to remember. My first exposure to “military style firearms” was when my father purchased a Bushmaster Pistol manufactured by Gwinn Firearms back in the late 70’s. I think this was my first true love. I wasn’t allowed to shoot it right away but I always knew I wanted to. Until that point I was only regularly exposed to firearms where it was common to fire 20 rounds or so, give it a cleaning and retire it until the next trip to the range. With this new addition came the necessity for big magazines and more ammo. This would prove to be the beginning of a life long hobby, and the basis for many future career choices. I know I have said it many times before, but once again, “Thanks Dad.”

In my early days collecting the AR-15 rifles, there were not many caliber conversions being marketed that I was aware of. They were almost all chambered for .223 (5.56×45) with a few 9×19 examples out there. The latter were fairly rare and definitely more expensive. Colt had a .22 Long Rifle sub-caliber unit, and Jon Ciener was marketing the Atchisson kit, but I was never really interested in stepping down in ballistic properties. The original Armalite AR-10’s in .308 (7.62×51) were very rare and expensive and were never a realistic option.

In order to satisfy my desire to study and collect these rifles, I was on a mission to buy every part for every configuration I could find. That poor SP-1 sported almost every stock on the market and the barrel lengths covered all the bases as well. The hand-guards varied from the original beavertails, to the A2 Style round ones, the carbine A2 style on the shorty upper and even sported the M-203 hand-guards when a flare launcher was added to the family. After a while it was just obvious that a new caliber was all that was left.

My quest was a lonely one without many options, but to anyone on this same road today Dalphon Manufacturing is here to assist you. I first met the folks at Dalphon at the Soldier of Fortune Convention a few years back. They had some pretty innovative products on display. I noticed their suppressors first, and after walking past their display a few times I noticed that the bore on a few of their AR barrels was a little “large”. I believe it was a 9mm upper I was looking at, but they had many more in the works. They have an impressive product line and the AR-15 caliber conversions are just a part of their business.

When they introduced their newest upper receiver chambered in .50 Action Express it caught my attention right away. I seem to have this foolish grin that washes over my face whenever I encounter a firearm with a bore of 1/2” or better and it was definitely present again this time. Someone had tried this conversion a few years back and it kind of drifted into the shadows but remained an interest of mine nonetheless. I remember reading about the massive muzzle energy and stopping power, and thinking it should be on my list to someday own one. I contacted Dalphon and they shipped a unit right out.

While waiting for it to come in, I did a little homework on available ammo. Back when the .50AE round was first introduced, it was as expensive as .50 BMG. If we could find it at $1.50 per round it was a good deal. I was pretty impressed this time when I picked up a few boxes of Speer Gold Dot for less than $1.00 per round. There are also many ammunition choices now, as where there were only two originally.

Since I also knew ahead of time that it would arrive in a “flat-top” configuration I started looking around for a suitable test scope. I contacted C-More Systems and they shipped me one of their Tactical Sights. This seemed to be a natural marriage, and when it arrived and was mounted, my suspicions were confirmed. It was perfect for the Dalphon unit.

When the gun arrived, I took it apart to see what made it tick. The most noticeable difference from a standard AR-15 was the barrel assembly. It is a heavy 16” stainless steel bull barrel surrounded by a round hand-guard. It is gas operated and utilizes a unique adjustable gas block. The gas block is moved foreword or rearward to adjust gas pressure. There are 4 allen screws that must be loosened and re-tightened when the block is in its desired position. There are currently 2 settings, one for hot ammo and one for regular loads, and it is my understanding that a fully adjustable gas system is in the development stages.

Some of the .50 AE ammo on the market creates much more pressure than other brands and this has made it necessary to bleed off a little gas to prevent damage to the firearm. Most often the extractor would be the victim of these hot loads and the easing of the gas pressure has evidently corrected the situation. IMI Ammunition is commonly a little hotter than many other commercial brands and the hot setting is actually stamped IMI.

I had done enough fondling and it was time to test it out. I mounted the C-More Sight and it surprisingly set almost dead center from the factory. The detail and quality of the C-More was amazing. Not only was it very functional and comfortable, but the aesthetics were incredible. They incorporate an E2 style “rear sight” into their design that looks just like a factory Colt unit. Everyone who examined the scope thought the “rear sight” portion of the scope was part of the rifle itself. The C-More Tactical Sight is a red-dot sight that also utilizes the iron sight for superior accuracy. Having used a number of red-dot sights over the years, and seeing few real improvements, I set my expectations low. I am pleased to report here that I was not disappointed, but actually very impressed with this system. Target acquisition is fast, and by using the dot in conjunction with the rear sight it is much more consistent than any I have used in the past. Thumbs up to C-More.

Due to all the stories I had heard about this particular caliber being fired in a 16” barrel as opposed to the much shorter barrel of the Desert Eagle pistol, I wanted to run it through a chronograph and alleviate some fact from a little fiction right away. We set up a Dillon chronograph and I loaded a magazine with Speer 325 grain Gold Dots. We wanted a string of five rounds to get an average reading. As soon as I squeezed the trigger the first time I knew this was not your typical AR. The average bullet speed was over 1,760 feet per second, and the recoil was very noticeable.

I had expectations of light to moderate recoil due to the very efficient buffer system, but these expectations were soon quelled. This bad boy has some thump! Now don’t get me wrong, it is not anywhere near severe enough to discourage you from shooting it again (and again…and again…), but you definitely know it is there. The sound is moderate, and the heavy barrel assists you in keeping the muzzle down a little bit when firing rounds close together.

There was a private shoot that would be attended by many seasoned Emma-gees coming up and I thought it would be the perfect place to get the “man-on-the-street” opinion of the Dalphon conversion. This was a shoot for the members of the Hiram Maxim group that work at the big Military Firearms Shoot & Expo every year, and was an opportunity for the crew to get a little shooting in. I had mentioned to a few of the guys that I may be bringing the Dalphon and when I pulled in I was asked right away of its whereabouts. When I pulled it out and started loading a magazine, an instant line began to form. When I set the rifle down and the bore diameter was visible, the line got longer.

I gave everyone interested a few rounds to fire at the appliance or automobile of their choice, and almost all the reactions were the same. After firing a couple rounds, they would typically rotate their shoulder or make some type of signal that they were aware of the recoil, and a big smile would wash over their face. When the line would quiet down, the first question I would get was “How much are these?”

When asked about their opinion of this combo everyone liked the C-More Tactical Sight, and all were intrigued by the massive bore of the rifle. When I asked about the recoil, almost everyone compared it to shooting a shotgun, and no one thought it was too excessive. The unanimous decision was it was certainly different than any other AR-15 family rifle they had ever encountered and all liked it.

I was very impressed with the quality and the craftsmanship of the Dalphon system. The unit functioned almost flawlessly. The only stoppage I encountered was a short cycle due to the fact that I started out with the gas system in the hot ammo setting when it was not necessary. I returned the gas block to the correct position and it continued to function great.

The finish on the upper receiver as well as the Dalphon lower receiver I tested it on was nice and dark. It was not shiny at all, and actually resembled a very desirable, early Colt finish. I have seen many different colored receivers in the past, that seemed to cover the spectrum from gray, to purple, to gloss black and this is definitely one of the best finishes I have encountered.

The necessary modifications to the bolt and the magazine were very professionally done and it is obvious that Dalphon did a lot of R&D before marketing this conversion. The bolt was opened up to accommodate the much larger base of the .50AE round and the extractor also needed to be modified. Specially modified extractors are available for your spare parts kits.

The magazine utilizes a standard 30-round magazine body with a modified follower and a built in spacer / feed ramp to accommodate the shorter cartridge. I experienced no malfunctions due to the design of the magazine. Just like the remainder of the conversion, it was very well made.

The bolt carrier and lower receiver remain original and unmodified. For some of you this statement may be the answer to a burning question you have had all along. Without a doubt, the most commonly asked question I have encountered with this conversion was not “How is the recoil?” but rather “Can you shoot it in full auto on a registered lower?” Well, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and yes, now you can shoot the massive .50 Action Express in full auto.

Dalphon is currently manufacturing upper receivers in 45ACP, 40S&W, 9mm, 10mm and 7.62×39. Others coming soon include 44 Mag, 440 Corbon and 357. If the quality of their .50AE upper receiver is a reflection of the quality of these others, I am sure you will be impressed.

Dalphon
P.O. Box 2215
Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-6867
E-Mail: info@dalphon.com
Website: www.dalphon.com

C-More Systems
P.O. Box 1750
Manassas, VA 20108
(703)361-2663
E-Mail: headsup@cmore.com
Website: www.cmore.com