Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/31/2005 8:52:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:05:41 PM EDT
I'd say yes, since it uses the same lower, mags, same round, etc, etc. The only real difference is the gas piston system. It is a variant of the AR, to be sure but still an AR, IMHO.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:09:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:20:54 PM EDT
If it ain't direct gas impingment, it ain't an AR-10/15/16, but a morph.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:21:59 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:25:23 PM EDT
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:28:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 9:30:15 PM EDT by BravoCompanyUSA]
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:55:24 PM EDT
Paul....I cannot believe you're up at 1 in the morning pondering the existential question of our time....."What is an AR-15?"

I use the term 'AR-15 type' to try and describe the many descendants of the AR-15. The salient features would be the in line bore, 2 piece reciever, rotary bolt and conventional stock-grip-mag-barrel layout. This describes the HK416, the LW guns, the POF, the Dow, the Barrett M468 and even the subguns. Not sure how the .22 conversions lock up but they generally meet most of the criteria.

See the thread in the Full Auto forum about a RPD built onto a Mac-11 lower receiver.

Simon
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:31:32 PM EDT
It's an AR in the same way a Colt 9mm SMG is an AR.

JMO.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 4:13:22 AM EDT
The LW upper looks like an AR upper if ya don't look too close. I think the LW is quite different. It's very similar to operate, and many parts interchange, but the differences are great.

It's method of operation and maintenance requirements are fundamentally different. The modularity of the AR is gone as to the upper, bolt carrier, barrel, handguards and front sight/gas block. Add a handful of parts that you aren't going to find in your parts bin and ya got a mouse of a whole different color.

The changes are much greater than the differences between an M1 and an M14 and it deserves a new model designation - just like the new HK upper.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 4:28:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:16:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:22:57 AM EDT
Yes, the Colt 703 was a AR.



Originally Posted By Tweak:

Originally Posted By BravoCompanyUSA:
Interesting question.
My DI told me it was a 5.56mm, magazine fed, gas operated, air-cooled, shoulder fired, weapon.



Sounds more like an M16 than an AR15.

Was COLT's gas piston design back in the '60s an AR?

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:32:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:43:54 AM EDT
Ya mean if we make an upper that is a single shot, 12 gauge, break open shotgun and put it on an AR lower, is it an AR?

Seems like you are heading into the mind of a regulator. Scary place to go.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:52:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 5:57:29 AM EDT by Tweak]
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:55:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tweak:
depends on how we are defining an AR. I'd be tempted to go with the patent description, in which case the direct gas system is defined.



Exactly, that is how ArmaLite put the AR-18 into production, changed the gas system so as not to violate the patent that they had sold to Colt's.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:59:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:00:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:02:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:04:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 6:09:02 AM EDT by warguns]

Originally Posted By Tweak:
depends on how we are defining an AR. I'd be tempted to go with the patent description, in which case the direct gas system is defined.

royalty payment to whom?



I don’t think so, the direct gas system was a copy of the French Mas28-31.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:19:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:17:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By warguns:
I don’t think so, the direct gas system was a copy of the French Mas28-31.




The gas system was different enough that ArmaLite got a patent on it, and then sold it to Colt's.


Originally Posted By Tweak:
never heard that, don't have my BR handy to check the dates.



After ArmaLite sold the gas system Stoner converted his AR-16 to a gas piston set up to avoid patent violations. Think Reed Knight has that rifle, should be pictured in the tacked thread.


Originally Posted By LeitnerWise:

IIRC, didn't Colt make payments to ArmaLite?



Yes, 4.5 percent, if I remember correctly.


Originally Posted By Tweak:
AFAIK, the AR-18 patent stayed with Armalite. I wasn't aware that COLT paid royalties on the AR15 patent after they bought it.



The AR-18 was a AR-16 spin off, and due to the time line the AR-18 was a gas piston set up from the get go. Because ArmaLite sold Stoner's gas system, all his future designs would be piston set ups (until the patent ran out, then comes the SR-25)


Originally Posted By Tweak:
Since COLT owned the patent on the AR15 and then added a gas piston to it (at the behest of .mil IIRC) why would they then be paying royalties?



I think it was the other way around, Colt's designed it, and tried to sell it to .gov. Arguably Colt's would not have to pay royalties on that rifle, if it would have sold. Were royalties paid to Colt's on the T-65?


Originally Posted By Tweak:
the direct gas system is part of Stoner's patent on the design, many have asserted it was copied from this gun and from that one but the design was different enough from those that preceded it to warrant a patent of it own.



Ooops, I see you already covered that.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:28:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:34:47 AM EDT
Does a piston drive upper receiver make the AR a completely different weapon? Look at the aircraft industry. The airframe remains essentially the same, but the internals (Engine, avionics package, controls, safety features, et al) can be completely different. The aircraft's nomenclature remains the same. Whether a C model or a H model, it's still called a B-52. Regardless of the process that makes the black stick go boom, it's still an AR-15/M-16 variant.

Mike
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:35:46 AM EDT
If we take a look at the pst military designations for things it gets rather confusing. Take for example the M4 series Sherman tank of WWII vintage. The original M4 had a welded hull while the M4A1 had a cast hull. Then the M4A2 came along, welded hull but a diesel engine. Then the M4A3 comes along, welded hull and gasoline engine. Then there were the later models which were made with the T23 turret with a 76mm main gun instead of the original 75mm. Then comes the E models which included complete heavier armor and a brand new type of suspension. The final M4A3E8 was a very different tank than the original M4, different hull, suspension, turret, main gun, fire control, ammo stowage etc.. yet it was still an M4 variant. It seems that as long as it is still based on the same vehicle (in this case the M16/M4/AR) and does the same job then it retains the name of that weapons system. As far as I am concerned, the LW/HK/POF are still AR/M16/M4 variants, just add a new E or A designation to them. Just one way to look at it.

Steve
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:41:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 7:42:32 AM EDT by Ekie]

Originally Posted By Tweak:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
After ArmaLite sold the gas system Stoner converted his AR-16 to a gas piston set up to avoid patent violations. Think Reed Knight has that rifle, should be pictured in the tacked thread.



I didn't know that, I thought the AR-18 were always gas piston designs.



Correct, the AR-18 was always gas piston, the AR-16 was direct gas impingment, then changed to piston after the rights were sold. The gas piston converted AR-16 was then downsized into the AR-18, by the usual suspects.

Remember the time line, Colt's bought this stuff in 58/59 (don't have a book in front of me).
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:49:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:57:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:59:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 8:00:32 AM EDT by Ekie]

Originally Posted By Tweak:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
(don't have a book in front of me).



that makes two of us, didn't know the AR16 was direct gas, thought it was an AR18 only in .30.



Well it does fall into trivia. The AR-18 was an AR-16 spin off, just like the AR-15 came from the AR-10. Here is a picture of the first AR-16, third from top (Stoner converted it to gas piston only after ArmaLite sold his patent):



Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:14:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:23:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 8:56:48 AM EDT by _DR]
I think so.

It seems the HK416 is in fact another variant of the M4.

The fact that H&K designated nomenclature referred to it as the "HKM4D" before the Colt litigation necessitated the name change at least proves that H&K intended it to be an M4 variant.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:51:41 AM EDT
Well to me the weapon is identified by the part that must be registered. For an AR15 that is the lower reciever. As long as you have an AR15 lower reciever its still an AR15. Can I sell my AR15 with a break action upper reciever conversion to someone in California? No. Why? Because its an AR15. I see this as a legal definition.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:58:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
Well to me the weapon is identified by the part that must be registered. For an AR15 that is the lower reciever. As long as you have an AR15 lower reciever its still an AR15. Can I sell my AR15 with a break action upper reciever conversion to someone in California? No. Why? Because its an AR15. I see this as a legal definition.



I don't know about the practicality of using Kalifornistan DOJ rulings as a basis for broad legal definitions
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:21:59 AM EDT
Top Top