Take a note at the barrels used in the ArmaLite AR-10 used in the Springfield Armory.

This one is from 4 Dec 1956



This one is from 16 Jan 1957



This one is from 29 Jan 1957



The one in the images from 4 Dec 1956 and 16 Jan 1957,is this the original aluminum/steel composite barrel as the one in the image from 29 Jan 1957 is the steel barrel?

This 15 Jan 1957 image is of the AR-10 barrel burst,so the one in the 29 Jan 1957 may be the steel barrel.

I just spent an hour at a former BATF agent's house looking over his MG collection (regiatered).  He has a registered Qualified Manufacturing AR10 Sudanese model in almost new condition, but he also has some spare parts that he bought from Dolf Goldsmith when Dolf (ARPAC) dissolved the Armalite collection back in the 1980's.

After being bribed with Dismal Swamp beer (brand of local brew), he brought out his spares collection, which included some very early AR10 stuff.

From specifically looking at the handguards and a buttstock, the cross section looks like there is an outer layer of plastic like material, which is backed with a fiberglass matte with heavy adhesive layer and a thin metal heat shield.  It does not look like the metal foil that is referenced.  It is fairly light compared to a M4 handguard of today, but it is now pretty brittle when not on a upper.

Buttstocks look the same, but the buttplate looks like it has seen much better times.  Inner foam looks terrible after almost 60 years as it has yellowed heavily and started to go bad.  If you tap along the stock, you hear when there have been voids forming.

Love the Sudanese model, but I was horrified to find that he had an almost new upper cut down by a local gunsmith into a carbine clone, since he fell in love with that size from seeing one posted on this very forum.
Seems BATF agents like to cruise AR15.com also.

If I can convince him to let me take some pics, I will post them up here.  He has never fired this piece as no one at BATF knew that he had them registered to his wife's name, since there was a time that it was frowned on for agents to have certain types of weapons - go figure.

Frank:  What is "Qualified Manufacturing AR10 Sudanese model" ?  Was Qualified Manufacturing an outfit that did conversions?

And please give more background on ARPAC and that Armalite collection?  Never heard of it - want to know more.

Qualified Manufacturing was a Class 2 manufacturer out of Oklahoma.  They basically concentrated on H&K's and Uzi's but they also seemed to run into more exotic guns like AR10's, Rewelded AK47's and even a Mag 58.  The first company was run by a gentleman named Parker, and later a second company was run by a gentlemen named Arville Sellmeyer.  Arville was a great guy to deal with.  Mr. Parker, not so much.  If you bought a gun from Arville, you knew it was a legit, custom built or assembled gun - the other company, it was probably an unregistered gun or bring back that was paper registered and not a rebuilt gun or rewat.  I am sure there are many people who do not feel that way, but I bought a Chinese AK47 that was supposed to be an Amnesty registered war trophy and even in 1983 it was going for big bucks - $3000, but I later found out from BATF that it was registered on a Form 2 in 1983 - so it should have only been a $800 gun.  

Dolph Goldsmith was a Class 3 dealer from California who was pretty good to deal with.  He moved his operation from Calif (Bay Area) to Texas when the Cali laws changed.  He had deep roots in Cali and bought and sold through the 1960's through 1980's.  He has authored several books concentrating on the Maxim, Vickers, Browning MGs all by Collector Grade Pubs.  His company was called ARPAC.  AMong other great guns he sold through the years, he also sold off a bunch of Armalite's guns from after the business was dissolved and sold to the PI/Elisco Tool.  He had a bunch of AR18's, some Ar10's and other stuff.  Knight got most of the stuff, but all of the weird AR18's were split up.

FrankSPPD, I know you are no stranger to this forum, but let me say that it has been wonderful reading your posts the last few weeks. I liken it to blundering around in a semi-dark room and having someone come in with a flashlight and point out something that was right in front of you. We are first and foremost history junkies, and these pics by armeiro, illuminated by your experience are very much appreciated, and I am sure I am speaking for everyone on the forum. Hearing insider information like this is very, very interesting. Thanks for sharing your experiences and expertise. - Morg

^^^^DITTO^^^^

Third

"ORDBD-TX 21 February 1957

SUBJECT : Setter Report on Limited Firing Test of Rifle, Caliber 7 .62mm, Armalite AR-10, No . 1002 With All Steel Barrel

TO : Commanding General, Ordnance Weapons Command, Rock Island, Illinois
ATTENTION : ORDOW-TX

1 . Reference is made to Springfield Armory report TR11-1091 (no copy of it, at
the armory, now LTC), dated 4 February 1957 which covers the Armory tests performed
with the Armalite Rifle, AR-10 . This rifle incorporates a composite steel
and aluminum barrel . The purpose of this letter is to report on tests performed
at Springfield Armory with Armalite Rifle, AR-10, No . 1002, modified to incorporate
an all steel barrel . This design was evolved by Armalite after the composite
steel and aluminum barrel ruptured in the course of the Armory tests covered
in TR11-1091 .

2 . The modified rifle submitted to Springfield Armory by the Armalite Division
of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corp ., was subjected to the following tests in
accordance with teletyped instructions from Eq, Ordnance Weapons Command, dated
21 January 1957 : a. High Temperature Test ; b . Humidity Test ; c . Sub-Zero Test ;
d . Accuracy Test ; e . Rain Test ; f . Sustained Firing Test ; g . Rough Handling Test
With the exception of the Sub-Zero Temperature Test, the Armalite Rifle was not
previously subjected to the above listed tests .

3 . Rifle go . 1002, the rifle which had experienced a barrel failure, was rebarreled
with a fluted barrel fabricated from ORD-4150 type steel . The general
configuration of the barrel was not changed. However, the barrel is all steel
rather than built up of a steel tube (wall thickness : 0 .145" LTC) and a fluted
aluminum jacket . Weight of the modified rifle witbout a magazine was 7 .01 pounds
compared to 7 .18 pounds with the composite barrel . The basic steel wall was at
least as thick as before but the steel ribs were much thinner than the aluminum
ribs .

4 . The subject rifle was fire& a total of 2089 rounds (all steel barrel) . Of
this total, 407 rounds were fired under non-adverse conditions with two light
blow (see section "7 .", below LTC) malfunctions occurring . A total of 1689 round
was fired under adverse conditions with generally satisfactory results, except
in the sub-temperature tests . A total of 20 malfunctions occurred during these
adverse tests as follows : POR-1 " TFR-5 ; BC-2 ; LB-1 ; MF-1 ; FJ(RF)-1 ; BFH-2 (action
seized) ; BFR-5 ; FF-2 . Total 20 (See Table I for explanation of abbreviated malfunction
categories) . During the firing tests, there was one part broken . This
was the hammer, buffer disc after 602 rounds had been fired .

5 . The SOP for these tests was followed except for a condensation of the humidity
tests to permit completion in the time the climatic facility was available .

6 . The firing record is presented in detail in Table II . A summary of the results
by tests are presented below :
a . High Temperature Test . Satisfactory function (160 degrees F . LTC) .
b . Humidity Test . 1unetions which occurred are not attributed to test con
ditions . e misfeed" malfunction and the "engaging of the bolt during the automatic
burst" malfunctions were probably induced by the firing jack . One "light
blow" malfunction occurred - cause unknown . Fired cases were found to be creased
on the body . Inspection of the barrel breech end disclosed to the Armalite representative
that the chamber entrance lacked a radius . The radius was put on the
barrel, after the humidity test was completed, and creasing of cases was reduced
c . Sub-Zero Tem erature Test . The weapon becomes unserviceable at sub-zero
temperature - degrees , see Table II, for details LTC) . Twice the action
seized during the firing phases and required extreme effort to free the action .
Even with the weapon stripped in a jack, the action could not be manually opened
A lanyard was required . Once freed, the action functioned satisfactorily .
d . Accurac Test . Three ten-shot, 100 yard accuracy targets wera fired from a
muzzle an e ow position. Accuracy was satisfactory with the following average
results : E .S . - 5.7 inches ; M.R. - 1 .6 inches .
e . Rain Test . Function was satisfactory with only two "failure-to-feed" malfunctions
occurring . These malfunctions could have been due to over power . The
cyclic rate of the weapon during the Rain Test was approximately 50 spm faster
than normal . The use of lubriplate probably caused the rate increase .
f . Sustained Firing Test . The weapon functioned satisfactorily . detail- Table III give ed results re a-ive to temperature rise in various components during the
sustained firing test . The weapon was found deficient in the left side of the
handguard quickly became uncomfortable to hold (early handguard design had only
minimal heat venting capability LTC) . Immediately after 600 rounds, one round
was fed into the chamber to cook-off . Cook-off did not occur and after waiting
five minutes, the round was intentionally triggered off .
g . Rough Handling Stock . The weapon was serviceable at the conclusion of this
test .

7. During the Humidity Test, a light blow occurred, the source of which was
not determinable . Firing pin protrusion and firing pin indent were measured with
the following results : a . Firing pin protrusion - 0 .03'7 inch ; b . Firing pin indent
- 0 .0194 inch . During the rate check phase following the sub-zero temperature
test, two additional light blows occurred . A new automatic fire pawl and
the firing pin from Rifle Rio . 1004 (Table II gives No . 1009 LTC) were assembled
(firing pin protrusion - 0 .0465 inch) . No additional light blows occurred during
the firing of 1378 rounds .

8 . The test was completed on 30 January 1957 and the weapons were taken by the
Armalite representative .

Roy E . Rayle, Lt Col, Ord Corp"

AR-10er 1983-10-01

The steel barrel was lighter then the composite barrel "Weight of the modified rifle witbout a magazine was 7 .01 pounds compared to 7 .18 pounds with the composite barrel .",and parts from the 1004 were cannibalized to be used in the 1002 "A new automatic fire pawl and the firing pin from Rifle no . 1004  were assembled.",the forearm from the 1004 may have been  used in the 1002.

Wow!

Armeiro

A long time Armalite collector who I know advises that the front sight on the unserialized Boutelle AR10 was carried over onto AR10A SN 1005, which currently sits in Reed Knight collection wearing a modified upper, which is a quick change barrel with bipod.  

See the following Youtube vid:  MOve to 4.45 and specifically 4:48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pgMh45kr7s

We now know that the Boutelle rifle WAS one of the first AR10A's made, and since the uppers were interchangeable on the Hollywood AR10's - we may probably hypothesize that a prototype quick change barrel was added to 1005, and it has a similar front sight to the Boutelle rifle, only it has had a front sight hood added and it is fully finished, which is more in line with the later front sights.

The front sight looks like a tool room job on Boutelle's rifle, and would allow a heavier duty sight tower for the rigors of quick change durability - which is nicely pictured in the following:  See bottom of Page 71, Small Arm Review April 2009, Vol 12, No. 7 - Interview of former Armalite Engineer Arthur Miller.

That AR10A also does not appear to have a serial number as these rifles seem to have had the markings filled in with paint, but Mr Miller's left hand may be obscuring it.

What do you all think?

In the film,Reed Knight collection,the AR10A SN 1005 is not the one with the quick change barrel and bipod,that is the AR10A SN 1004.
The AR10A SN 1004 as a front sight very similar to the one used in prototype from Boutelle (the one at BATF),i i always thought that the one used in the AR10A SN 1004 "LMG" had been based on it.

One note: Originaly the AR10A SN 1004 was one of the two used in the Springfield Armory tests,the 1004 and the 1002,the 1004 may have been refited with a new metal perfurated forearm to see if it could be used as a LMG as its original forearm was placed in the 1002,in the Springfield armory tests the 1002 was the test rifle and as the barrel and forearm got damaged it canibalized the forarm and other parts from the 1004,this may be why the 1004 got a new forearm and used as a mockup for a LMG system that did not worked or exixted as the ammo belt was to feed directly from the magazine port.

The 1004 (LMG) can be seen in this photo,standing over the bipod in the prototype line,the last one.



The 1004 can be seen in the photos from Fairchild with the fake feed system,i dont think this is a quick change barrel as it may just be a mockup.



The is a image of this "1004" "LMG" with the number covered,and with a LMG but plate as to the normal rifle butplate,this may be as they were being used for bruchure photos.the early brochure images of this 1004 LMG have the rifle butplate as does the one in the collection,but at some point it used a LMG butplate.



This may be speculation but it may make make sense,the 1004 went with the 1002 to the Springfield Armory for testing,the 1002 was the tested unit as the 1004 was the "other one",after the incident with the 1002 the two got new steel barrels but the forearm from the 1004 went to the 1002 (at it got damaged as a result of the incident) as other parts from the 1004 went also to the 1002.
When the two came out from Springfield,to ArmaLite,the 1002 had a new steel barrel and the forearm from the 1004,the 1004 came out from Springfield with a new steel barrel but with no forearm.
As this was the inicial stage for the AR-10 and ArmaLite needed to explore the concept of the AR-10 in diferent variations,so it could sell the 1004 as it had some parts missing,was then fitted with the parts to explore the LMG concept,a new perfurared forearm and a bipod made it to a LMG,a ammo belt was then placed in a acessorie pice so it could be placed in the magazine port,this did not work but in the brochures it sells the idea of a LMG.
In the Fairchild ArmaLite film,the AR-10 LMG works but it is not the same,it is a diferent unit made to be and work as a AR-10 LMG,it as a machined lower receiver so it can feed from a normal belt feed mechenism,from the side,and a diferent bipod.
The barrel in the existing 1004 may be the same original steel barrel.
The can in this 1004 is diferent,the 1002 can got damaged at Springfield,so the one from the 1004 went to the 1002.

1004 and 1002

I dont have the "Small Arm Review April 2009, Vol 12, No. 7 ".

In this photo from the original ArmaLite peg board one can see the 4 inicial prototypes:

-X01 (M8)

-X02

-X03 (AR-10A)

-AR-10B Prototype

One can see the front sight and can in the AR-10B Prototype,the sight is similar to the one used in the 1004 "LMG".

In this larger photo of a AR-10B,one can see that the "Patent pending" and code number are intentionally covered,this is one of the photos of the AR-10B from Fairchild.

The upper receiver in the Boutelle AR-10B prototype as a diferent geometry from the Hollywood AR10 upper,the joint section between the upper and lower in the AR-10B prototype is diferent from the one used in the Hollywood AR10 and AR-15.
The upper receiver gas key section in the AR-10B prototype is longer then with the AR-10B 1001/1002/1003/1004/etc.
The front sight in the AR-10B prototype does not have the exposed gas block (to fit the gas tube in) section on the left side,as it is all covered inside the sight structure.
The forearm  in the AR-10B prototype (as with the AR-10A X03) as two lines of small diameter cooling holes on top and under.
The forearm  in the AR-10B 1001 (Samuel Cummings) as two lines of larger cooling holes on top and under.
The forearm  in the AR-10B 1002/1003/1004/etc, as one line on cooling holes on top and under,this as used in the pre Springfield Armory tests (i think) as one of the problems with this forearm was that it got too hot as there was no cooling holes over the left side over the gas tube,this AR-10B was the first genereation with the covered front sight.
The AR-10B with the open front sight is the improved version,it came after the Springfield Armory tests and it takes on improvements over the first generation AR-10B,it as a forearm with cooling holes on top/under/left/right sides,it as a stronger dust cover and dust cover cam cut in the carrier,etc.

In this image one can see,what i hope to be a chronological display of the units by code number.

X02
X03 (AR-10A)
AR-10B 1001 (Samuel Cummings)
AR-10B 1002 (Springfield Armory test)
AR-10B 1003
AR-10B 1004 (Springfield Armory test and LMG/new forearm and "can")
AR-10B 1005
AR-10B 1006 (improved version post Springfield Armory test/the forearm as cooling holes on top/under/left/right and the new open front sight)

Note that the AR-10B fired by E.Stoner in the Fairchild ArmaLite Film as a front sight with no base for the "can",normaly the ones that are made to use the "can",the covered sights from the first generation as the ones from the second generation with the open sight are made to use the "can",but this one in the film doesnt.

In the image,from the top,rifle n2 and n5 (and the LMG),have the simpler front sight not made to use the "can".

Page 81, Small Arm Review April 2009, Vol 12, No. 7 - Interview of former Armalite Engineer Arthur Miller

There is a B&W picture of General Sidney Hinds of WW2 fame firing a belt fed AR10, which is pictured in the photo the second from the bottom, but the bipod is missing from the barrel along with the front grip, which should be folding.

Glad I rediscovered this issue.

Top image,the ArmaLite AR-10B 1004 as a LMG mockup (after the Springfield Armory tests) for the ArmaLite-Fairchild photography.
It started as a AR-10B rifle but (after the Springfield Armory) it was then turned in to a AR-10B mockup LMG,as a way to show the things to come,this was to explore the possibility of having a AR-10 LMG.



The Armalite AR-10B 1001 (avec the cache-flamme) owned by Samuel Cummings.

Mockup,but only as a belt fed Light Machine Gun as the fed mechanism pictured in the image does nor work,but it works fine as a magazine fed Automatic rifle as the Browning Automatic Rifle.

This AR-10B is the #1003,note that the "can" is diferent from the ones used in the #1001/1002/1004 (original one,not the LMG that it got after Sringfield)/1005.The tip of the "can" in this #1003 is longer and straight at the front,the ones in #1001/1002/1004/1005 have a shorter tip and a rounded front.This #1003 can be seen in the ArmaLite-Fairchild advertising "Cover-Girl".
Note that in the lower right side of the photo there is a #103,possibly as a reference to #1003.



The AR-10B on the cover of GUNS Magazine March 1957 and holded by Richard Boutelle,is the AR-10B #1003.

#1001-Samuel Cummings
#1002-Springfield Armory
#1003-ArmaLite-Fairchild "Cover-Girl"
#1004-Springfield Armory
#1005

The AR-10B prototypes used diferent muzzle brakes
The "1001 and #1002 have a latch in the muzzle brake,the tip of the muzzle brake as a machined section so the latch can fit to it to lock it to the muzzle brake,but from what we can see from the photos of the #1002 and #1004 from the Springfield Armory,the #1003 was not the only using a diferent muzzle brake,only the #1001 and #1002 use the latch and the machined tip to hold it as the #1003/1004/1005 use a pin to hold the tip to the muzzle brake.

#1002







In the #1002 one can see the latch pice and the  muzzle brake tip.

In the #1004 one can see the pin and the diference in the  muzzle brake tip.





The muzzle brake sleeves are the same in the #1002 and #1004,as the tips are diferent.

Holy.... Well I'm convinced, going to attempt an AR-10 "Hollywood" Clone. This should be fun since I have no idea where to begin and I know this is going to rob me of my funds for my AK-47 build, but oh well...

The 5 early AR-10B prototypes (#1001/1002/1003/1004/1005) have only the ArmaLite AR-10 printed in the lower receiver left side (Patent Pending and # is covered),the next ones have the ArmaLite AR-10 (Patent Pending and #) and the Fairchild Pegasus logo.

Flash Hider Test



Object. Cumulative muzzle flash of five rounds automatic fire from an AR-10 Rifle. Muzzle of weapon at left center. Perforated extension at end of barrel does not appear to be effective as flash suppressor.



Object. Rifle, Armalite, AR-10 showing extent of flash after "Rds fired since last flash suppressor cleaning -1340." Print tipped in on cardboard mount.

"The toughest job for Sullivan's team developing the AR-10 was to design a new bolt assembly that would not infringe on existing patents and also, where possible,improve on existing designs ."



"Indeed, in these operating parts of the gun is the only use of rustable ferrous metals . Parts of the trigger group including the hammer, and the locking lugs and
bolt assembly, are steel. In some cases this is for strength ; in one instance it is simply to provide the necessary weight in a phenomenally light mechanism .
A definite mass is required in the moving bolt assembly to provide enough energy to load and cock, in recoiling after unlocking, and the carrier sleeve is of steel .
All steel parts are non corrosive treated."



"According to Richard Boutelle, president of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation and prime mover in the Armalite project the AR-10 becomes slightly sluggish
after 500 to a 1000 rounds have been fired without cleaning ."

So,was the AR-10 bolt made out of steel or aluminium?

"While the AR-10's are going through the hoops at Springfield Armory and Aberdeen proving ground, we put a couple over the jumps in a brief comparison test, using a fine German FG-42 paratrooper's 8 mm machine rifle as a control . The weather was miserable, and all guns got excellent rain tests.
Exhaustive firing was not possible with either of three Armalite guns,a standard autoloading sporting rifle resembling the test T-47 in external appearance, and the two AR-10 machine rifles ."

"... standard autoloading sporting rifle resembling the test T-47 in external appearance..."

This as the ArmaLite AR-3.

"While the AR-10's are going through the hoops at Springfield Armory and Aberdeen proving ground..."

Two AR-10B rifles were sent to the Springfield Armory tests (#2/#4),what rifles were sent to the Aberdeen Proving Ground tests?
#1001/#1002/#1003/#1004/#1005,#1 went to Samuel Cummings,#2 and #4 went to the S.A. tests,were #3 and #5 sent to the Aberdeen Proving Ground tests,or the ones sent to the S.A. are the same one sent to the Aberdeen Proving Ground tests?

"Armalite has produced AR-10 rifles for:
5 - Prototype Development
5 - Springfield Armory Tests and other demonstrations
5 - Austrian Tests
5 - German Tests
2 - U. S. Marine Corps Tests
3 - Fairchild-Armalite Demonstrations
25 - For world-wide sales agents demonstrations
Total 50 (A substantial production for a 3-room shop with minimum facilities)"

"...In February and May, 1957,the same AR-10 rifle that went through the Springfield Armory endurance tests was taken to Europe and demonstrated to certain countries..."

"...This rifle performed perfectly through all these demonstrations and now with over 20,000 rounds fired is still in excellent condition (Springfield Armory endurance tests required 6,000 rounds)..."

AR-10er 1984-02-01

"Armalite has produced AR-10 rifles for:
5 - Prototype Development
5 - Springfield Armory Tests and other demonstrations..."

The 5 ArmaLite AR-10 units used on the "Springfield Armory Tests and other demonstrations" were #1001 to #1005,so why is there a reference to previous 5 units?

If the "5 - Prototype Development" are the original prototypes...they were the X01/X02/X03 (AR-10A)/AR-10B Prototype,is there one other AR-10 prototype missing?

Units #1001/#1002/#1003/#1004/#1005 have the front sight covered and have the but stock/forearm/pistol grip covered by the plastic coating,they were used in the S.A. tests and demonstrations.

The next # units have some diferences as the open front sight,(in some of then) the pistol grip as the Bakelite exposed and the forearm and but stock as the Fiberglass cloth is visible,the "can" is slightly different from the ones used in the previous 5 units,some have the hole in the upper receiver.

From this photo (ar10.nl) from the German AR-10 test,one of the "5 - German Tests" units can be seen.

I do not think all the tests were done with different weapons.

The first tests were done at Ft Benning with the AR10A (model with sliding upper and lower receiver and combo front sight and muzzle brake aka SN X03) in Dec 1955.  

I think Armalite used 1-2 weapons for tests like Marine Corps, Springfield and Aberdeen.

The German and Austrian tests were done with later produced models, you can see those in the SAR article by Arthur Miller - since there is a mix of muzzle brake and non-brake models.   But most have Hollywood hump back style uppers, but the captions on pictures show they were Dutch made AR10s (listed as AR10A1's).

The sales samples were going to be later models outside of the samples sold to the original investors/sales people like Cummings, Michault (Sidem), Cooper McDonald and others.  Even Val Forgett/Navy Arms had a sales sample gun, but it was later cuban/Sudanese model.  Whether he ever got one of the Hollywood models - I do not know.  Dave Cumberland wrote about getting a sales sample AR10 to do the Thailand demos with - but it is not disclosed what model he got.  I think he got a Sudanese model, since the Siamese/Thai deal went under about the same time A/I lost their bid on the Dutch Rifle contract and Armalite went to Colt to make/sell the AR's.

There were less than 50 of the Hollywood models made, but that does not count the X model prototypes.  Hollywood was a basic shop, but the prototypes were originally made in either Gene Stoner's garage shop or George Sullivans garage shop, which you can see if you check his Hollywood residence address.

They did not move to the Santa Monica Blvd shop until Fairchild put money into the company - or that was my impression.  The million and one half USD that went into Armalite would have paid for the prototypes and first production run and then all the support that goes into developing the product to include the later models and Dutch trips and sales arrangements.   Nothing is ever said about what guns went to Sidem (who sold a lot of AR10's - since Michault was a partner in Armalite at the beginning and got all the low serial number Ar15's.)  Even the actual sales samples that Interarmco got outside of #1001 were higher number guns.  Even then, the Nicaraguan tests were done with 1001 since the tests failed when the bolt fractured - which was a problem with all the early prototypes - see Art Miller article from SAR.

Serial Number 00030 gun was tested by the Army in 1958 and it is a Dutch made Cuban or Sudanese model -  so did Dutch production restart with serial number 00001?  Probably.

Was that AR10 or AR15 bolts that were fracturing? I don't have the Art Miller article in SAR at hand. Is that from an issue in 2009 where he discussed the AR-18?

Do you know if they were using 8620 steel for the AR10 bolts?

The first one from the Dutch production was #000001 in 1958.

I want a collection like that one day

I want a collection like that every day.  

But I'd be happy just to be able to visit it in person.