ar15 is the same with the ar10 dustygamma. the only thing that made you think that it is better i think is because of the bigger 7.62x51 round. if only the us fallowed the british round using their version of intermediate round whhich is very comparable i think to the ak round. ithink the british round is a better all around round than d 5.56nato
I swear the original AR10 seems to have been better designed then the AR15 and modern AR10 which is actually a based on the AR15. Not to mention the Portuguese AR10 which was a copy of the original and improved over it's production.
Not to sound like some Learned Snot, but I have the luck (?!) to be an engineer AND a machinist, which is why I get off so much on the Armalite design. I'd make some radical changes, though........
The squareback AR-10(opening credits) from 1956(same as in NRA museum) lacked a bayonet lug and could not fire grenades. The transitional AR-10 used throughout the rest of the promo utilised a "Sudanese"front end. This had the same 3-prong flash supressor used on early m-16's which got caught up on foliage. The lack of a forward assist assembly created the occasional feeding problem. The free floating firing pin also could "pop-fire"some rounds prematurely. Overall it needed some development.
Correction:AR-10 doesn't have free floating pin, but a smll spring over the anvil. Different than its little child-the 15. Too, in the bolt,you don't rotate the cam lock to insert, it fits only one way, unlike AR-15. Got both and verified the design claims. Also, the earlier AR-10 didn't have forward assist simply cos' the stronger spring systems of .308 chambering did not require it.
How can the direct impingement system be flawed given the decades and millions of millions of rounds fired through across a number of conflicts and western governments. C'mon now. You know something more than those sending America to fight wars with equipment that won't get it done? You writing the checks for gear that is flawed? Let's use science, not internet opinions here bud.
Yeah like carbon fouling and increased part breakage from heat is just "internet opinion". I'm not saying the AR15 is bad I'm saying it could use some more improvements for military use; namely a gas piston system (mainly for carbines) and possible a better round.
The main reason that the original M16s fouled/broke was the M16 was supposed use a different powder but i a cost cutting measure, the Govt. continued to use a dirtier pwoderthat functioned well in the M14
The AR10 did not need a forward assist. The only reason why there was one on the M16A1 was mainly due to the wrong powder used, initially, in the 5.56 cartridge as well as the wrong type of lube supplied to the troops in the field
ar15 is the same with the ar10 dustygamma. the only thing that made you think that it is better i think is because of the bigger 7.62x51 round. if only the us fallowed the british round using their version of intermediate round whhich is very comparable i think to the ak round. ithink the british round is a better all around round than d 5.56nato
dodgeviper0088 1 year ago
I swear the original AR10 seems to have been better designed then the AR15 and modern AR10 which is actually a based on the AR15. Not to mention the Portuguese AR10 which was a copy of the original and improved over it's production.
DustyGamma 3 years ago
The AR-15 was based off of the AR-10...Not the other way around.
The AR-10 was designed before, but produced massively in 1956.
The AR-15 was designed in 1957. Most people thought a drop in fire power was a disgrace to the rifle, but it turned out to help it.
Tayoshi 3 years ago
Not to sound like some Learned Snot, but I have the luck (?!) to be an engineer AND a machinist, which is why I get off so much on the Armalite design. I'd make some radical changes, though........
rattinox 3 years ago
With a few improvements, I bet my Dad's Marines would have loved this weapon over the M14 and surely the -16. (Da Nang '65-69)
rattinox 3 years ago
The squareback AR-10(opening credits) from 1956(same as in NRA museum) lacked a bayonet lug and could not fire grenades. The transitional AR-10 used throughout the rest of the promo utilised a "Sudanese"front end. This had the same 3-prong flash supressor used on early m-16's which got caught up on foliage. The lack of a forward assist assembly created the occasional feeding problem. The free floating firing pin also could "pop-fire"some rounds prematurely. Overall it needed some development.
arnbo88 3 years ago
Correction:AR-10 doesn't have free floating pin, but a smll spring over the anvil. Different than its little child-the 15. Too, in the bolt,you don't rotate the cam lock to insert, it fits only one way, unlike AR-15. Got both and verified the design claims. Also, the earlier AR-10 didn't have forward assist simply cos' the stronger spring systems of .308 chambering did not require it.
RabbitusMaximus 3 years ago
No way the M14 is the best! I'm a Marine and would take a M14 anyday!
TrueMarine 3 years ago
this is proply better than any modern gun today should be using these
imbordashell 3 years ago
"Without the use of tools..."
Is a pin punch a tool...
sigmasquadleader 3 years ago
That is a bullet, and a bullet is only a tool if you are firing it at someone that really deserves to be shot.
wesbilly 3 years ago
this rifle was way,waaaayyyy ahead of its time :)
SdM45 3 years ago 5
Yes and they've got a modulator on it! That isn't even common now days (should be I think).
However the direct impingement is quite flawed.
DustyGamma 3 years ago
How can the direct impingement system be flawed given the decades and millions of millions of rounds fired through across a number of conflicts and western governments. C'mon now. You know something more than those sending America to fight wars with equipment that won't get it done? You writing the checks for gear that is flawed? Let's use science, not internet opinions here bud.
RabbitusMaximus 3 years ago
Yeah like carbon fouling and increased part breakage from heat is just "internet opinion". I'm not saying the AR15 is bad I'm saying it could use some more improvements for military use; namely a gas piston system (mainly for carbines) and possible a better round.
DustyGamma 3 years ago
The main reason that the original M16s fouled/broke was the M16 was supposed use a different powder but i a cost cutting measure, the Govt. continued to use a dirtier pwoderthat functioned well in the M14
armouredfist 2 years ago
the charging handle is cheesy on these. and no forward assist either. those came later.
shiroisan87 3 years ago
The charging handle could be used if it was that bad, but the best ones were the ones on the side.
sigmasquadleader 3 years ago
The AR10 did not need a forward assist. The only reason why there was one on the M16A1 was mainly due to the wrong powder used, initially, in the 5.56 cartridge as well as the wrong type of lube supplied to the troops in the field
armouredfist 2 years ago
amazing weapon. thanks, mister stoner.
shiroisan87 3 years ago
lol these old instruction films are funny. thanks for sharing. i love the ar 15
shiroisan87 3 years ago