Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 6/24/2005 2:56:10 PM EDT
Why is Stoner Credited so Totally with the AR-15 when he didn't design it??? Stoner designed the AR-10 biased on a combination of previous existing designs, The Johnson rifle and machine gun bolt locking lugs and buffer tube system. The gas system from Swedish Ljungman AG42B, and The FAL's two piece clam shell receivers. Stoner's main design contribution was his use of the high tech materials like the Bakelite stocks and forged aluminum receivers. He had a background in aircraft design and worked with a lot of modern materials. I think he was a great guy, maybe even a genius, but truly he was more of an engineer who combined others ideas to make an even better firearm more so then creating an original design or being a great inventor. And as far as Stoner designing the AR-15, He didn't. Robert Fremont - prototype manufacturing supervisor from Armalite, and L. James Sullivan - who oversaw drafting work had been they key developers of the AR-15. They based it on the AR-10 but made significant changes. So Stoner didn't in fact really design the AR-15 pre say. Also Stoner absolutely didn't Design the AR-18 or AR180 as it were. Sullivan also came up with it. It was an alternative to the AR-15 as a fail safe if the Army rejected the AR-15. I think Stoners greatest and very original design was the Stoner 63 weapons system which was used to great effect by the Navy Seals durring Nam. So, IMHO Stoner was great, but not a John Moses Browning.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 3:07:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2005 3:09:00 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]
Most Great Inventors are standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.


So he borrowed ideas, merged them, added a bit and came up with something new - that's still invention.


No, Stoner was no John Moses Brown, but few are.


How about the vaunted Springfield? That's just a Mauser ripoff.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 3:09:36 PM EDT
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 3:15:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2005 3:19:08 PM EDT by Forward_Assist]


He made it happen.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 3:29:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.



How so?
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 3:49:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2005 3:53:26 PM EDT by Dace]
He not only designed it, he invented it.


Designer: one that creates and manufactures a new product style or design



Invent: to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment


And do you know how we know he did both of these? He/his company held the patent. Therefore it was a new and useful design, something never created before.

No one before him brought all those ideas together. No one ever said he deisgned and invented all the ideas he used.

Was Frank Loyd Wright an architect and designer of structures? Well according to you he couldnt have been. I mean guys before him thought up the whole 4 walls one roof idea, someone else thought up windows, someone else thought of doors, and I bet someone else even thought of floors. He just borrowed all those ideas, he really was just copying everybody else.



Link Posted: 6/24/2005 4:21:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2005 4:22:46 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.



How so?



Not so.

Simonov designed the SKS, Kalashnikov designed the AK47. The gas sytems are similar, but that's about it. By that time the gas piston was not a new idea. The cartridge calilber was not dictated bny the designers. The SKS was not a knockoff of the AK47.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 4:27:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2005 5:53:32 PM EDT by Malysh]
Gene Stoner was L. James Sullivan and Robt Fremont's boss at ArmaLite. These 2 fine designers have received and deserve plenty of credit for the AR-15. So does Gene Stoner. He didn't just get all the credit, he also put time in helping design the rifle. He was sent to the Aberdeen AR-15 rifle trials and the Army Arctic trials in Alaska. This was not just a case of the boss getting to go to the big meetings, he was intimately involved in all phases of the major design sub assemblies and they had to be approved by him as well.

ArmaLite was not adverse to sending the assistant engineers out in the field, either. They sent both Gene Stoner, and another assistant, Art Miller to Holland at separate times during the start up for the manufacturing of the AR-10. Miller helped greatly in the conversion of the dimensions from SAE to metric. No small task.

Stoner probably does get too much credit for designing the .223 cartridge from what I've read. That was primary Sullivan and Fremont. It was basically a refinement of the existing .222 Remington cartridge. Although they used an already existing cartridge I don't think it diminishes their achievement any more than it does Stoner's getting some credit for the design of the AR-15.

Stoner designed the lockwork of the AR-15 rifle, This includes the trigger, hammer, disconnector and selector lever. It was not merely a scaled down AR-10 lockwork. The US Patent Office copies shown in referrence books clearly credit Stoner with these designs. I find it doubtful that he would have robbed Sullivan and Fremont of the credit for these assemblies had they designed them.

If Stoner, in your words, was "credited so totally with the AR-15" I don't think we would have heard as much about Sullivan and Fremont as we have. I also think that either one, or both of them would have made some bad comments about Stoner in all the years that have gone by. I have never personally read a bad comment from either of them about Gene Stoner.
There was an interview/article about Sullivan in an old Small Arms review where he states that Eugene Stoner was the inventor of the AR-15 but that he and Fremont were the designers, and goes to some length to explain what he feels are the differences between an inventor and a designer. If you want a copy of this article, you can email me and I will be happy to send a copy to you. It was very interesting! If Sullivan felt Stoner should have credit for this invention, who am I to argue with him?? Who are we to argue with him?

The AR-10 and AR-15 stocks were never bakelite. They were hand wrapped fiberglass, and later on, something Colt's called Fiberite.

The Swedish Ljungman gas system, and also the French MAS, lacked a major design feature that Stoner solely invented by himself. The rotary bolt he invented had gas ports in it so that during recoil, these ports would rotate to a closed position and the gas pressure would start to decline in the bolt and carrier. Stoner felt this meant the rifle didn't need an adjustable gas port. There are pros and cons to the lack of the system being adjustable, of course.

I agree with you that Stoner didn't DESIGN the AR-18. But, using the definition that Sullivan uses, he did INVENT it. Take a good look at Stoner's AR-16 and tell me that Sullivan didn'nt use it as a pattern for the AR-18. They are almost the same weapon except that the mag well is a little different and the caliber is different. Internally they are almost identical.
ArmaLite did not design the AR-18 as a fall back in case the US gov didn't adopt the AR-15. They developed it for lesser industrial countries, so that they could manufacture under license, a rifle made of carbon steel where main sub assemblies could be welded together, instead of aluminum forgings which were tricky to manufacture and far more expensive than a stamped steel receiver. They did offer the design to the US government, of course.

All weapons inventors study the great inventions that came before them. Many try to improve upon what has come before them. This includes Sam Colt and everybody else, including Mikhail Kalashnikov. Even the great Browning studied earlier designs. But Browning I think is at the top the heap and light years beyond any weapons inventor the world has ever known. No way to prove this, but I bet Mr. Stoner would have been uncomfortable being mentioned in the same sentence with Browning.

The Stoner 62 and 63 systems were great inventions! Too bad they were never adopted by the gov., except for the limted use of the SEALS.

Thanks to several military rifle authors we can all discuss the 3 driving forces of the AR-15 rifle together and we know of all 3: Stoner, Sullivan, and Fremont. It would be a disservice if any of these 3 brilliant men were not known, or credited in the history of the AR-15.

Thanks for bringing your opinion on this topic, whether we agree or not. It's a valid question to discuss. And the more it's discussed, the more Sullivan and Fremont will be remembered for their large contributions.



Link Posted: 6/24/2005 4:37:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2005 4:38:33 PM EDT by Malysh]

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.



How so?



Not so.

Simonov designed the SKS, Kalashnikov designed the AK47. The gas sytems are similar, but that's about it. By that time the gas piston was not a new idea. The cartridge calilber was not dictated bny the designers. The SKS was not a knockoff of the AK47.



_DR is 100% correct, BTW. I was too pooped to give this point of Knight of the Olde Codes the attention _DR gave it. The only thing the SKS and the AK-47 have in common is the gas piston, period. Not even the lockworks have any similarity. BTW: Kalashnikov studied the M-1 Garand and the M-1 carbines design features and incorporated the Garands basic trigger and hammer design, and a very similar 2 lug bolt from the M-1 carbine in his AK-47. I don't think Dr. K. has been overcredited for his achievements, either. To this day he talks of John Garand as one of his great influences in arms design.

If you can come up with a totally new invention that doesn't borrow from the existing body of knowledge of the items that came before it, I would love to shake your hand!!!
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 4:41:57 PM EDT
Nice write up Malysh.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 5:50:16 PM EDT
Thank you Olds.
I know my posts are too long but I try to be informative and helpful.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:03:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2005 7:04:28 PM EDT by Corey]

Originally Posted By Malysh:
Gene Stoner was L. James Sullivan and Robt Fremont's boss at ArmaLite. ...

<snip>

Thanks for bringing your opinion on this topic, whether we agree or not. It's a valid question to discuss. And the more it's discussed, the more Sullivan and Fremont will be remembered for their large contributions.






And that is why I love guys who have early register dates but low post counts.

Outstanding post!

Corey

EDITED to reduce Malysh's quote to save space.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:04:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Malysh:
If you can come up with a totally new invention that doesn't borrow from the existing body of knowledge of the items that came before it, I would love to shake your hand!!!



I personally think that this is completely true, and because of it, there aren't going to be any advances in small arms for a while. The reason is that since most new designs do the same thing as the existing small arms, why replace the existing guns. I think that the M16 is here to stay untill there is another great leap in weapons design. That may take 10 years, it may take 100 years.

Just look at muskets. They didn't make all that many changes in them for a long time. Sure they went from match lock to flint lock to percussion caps, but it took several technologies to develope; rifled barrels in the 1700s, then in the 1800s bullets=rather than balls, and shell cassings, emerged. There was a boom in gun design(no pun intended). They developed bolt action rifles in the late 1800s, and then the maxim machine gun, then semi auto pistols, then submachine guns and finally assault rifles, and the rest is history. I personally belive we are at the peak of small arms developement. It will take another huge developement of new technologies before we see truely new weapons concepts to hit the battlefields.

I am done taking.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:15:53 PM EDT

It will take another huge developement of new technologies before we see truely new weapons concepts to hit the battlefields.

The boom in technology you mentioned was created by need. With the lessons learned from the US Civil War, the large number of conflicts in the late 1800's, arms build-ups in the very early 1900's, and WWI, there was a strong need for the technology.z
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:24:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.


The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle, Kalashnikov denies it was a copy, but it's hard to deny the truth when it's right in front of you.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:29:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:

Originally Posted By Malysh:
If you can come up with a totally new invention that doesn't borrow from the existing body of knowledge of the items that came before it, I would love to shake your hand!!!



I personally think that this is completely true, and because of it, there aren't going to be any advances in small arms for a while. The reason is that since most new designs do the same thing as the existing small arms, why replace the existing guns. I think that the M16 is here to stay untill there is another great leap in weapons design. That may take 10 years, it may take 100 years.

Just look at muskets. They didn't make all that many changes in them for a long time. Sure they went from match lock to flint lock to percussion caps, but it took several technologies to develope; rifled barrels in the 1700s, then in the 1800s bullets=rather than balls, and shell cassings, emerged. There was a boom in gun design(no pun intended). They developed bolt action rifles in the late 1800s, and then the maxim machine gun, then semi auto pistols, then submachine guns and finally assault rifles, and the rest is history. I personally belive we are at the peak of small arms developement. It will take another huge developement of new technologies before we see truely new weapons concepts to hit the battlefields.

I am done taking.



You missed the biggest advance in firearms design at the time, the Lever action...... Having a repeating rifle decimated all opponents
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:36:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.



How so?



Not so.

Simonov designed the SKS, Kalashnikov designed the AK47. The gas sytems are similar, but that's about it. By that time the gas piston was not a new idea. The cartridge calilber was not dictated bny the designers. The SKS was not a knockoff of the AK47.



+1

The SKS has a COMPLETELY different bolt/carrier/trigger system.

Take an AK and SKS apart and you would NEVER say they have anything in common, other than caliber and country of origin, again.

And I do think Gene Stoner was an innovator, but not quite as much as John Moses Browning or even John C. Garand.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:37:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wingman26:

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.


The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle, Kalashnikov denies it was a copy, but it's hard to deny the truth when it's right in front of you.





Looks have nothing to do with function.

They are similar on the outside only.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:48:36 PM EDT
History channel says ak was a copy of a german gun. They took over a german plant and found the plans.
Stoner came up with the idea of the .223. At first the .222 was to be used.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:59:34 PM EDT
Don't want the thread to go off topic. But handling the mags and field striping the Stg 44.

1. Mag Design
2. Bolt Design
3. Gas Design
4. Bullet Design concept 7.92x33 vs 7.62x39

Sure seems like Mr. AK took notice at the very least. I find it funny that the Soviets copied or stole so much of German designs after the WWII. (Us too) But somehow it is like pissing on someones back to suggest that the above might have some merit.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 8:41:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wingman26:

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.


The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle, Kalashnikov denies it was a copy, but it's hard to deny the truth when it's right in front of you.



Some what the same that I read about many years ago. The AK was a rip off of a German design, at the end of WWII the russians found the drawings of a prototype weapon the Germans were working on, it was this the AK was designed after.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 8:57:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2005 8:59:30 PM EDT by King_of_All_Tyrants]

Originally Posted By valblade:
History channel says ak was a copy of a german gun. They took over a german plant and found the plans.
Stoner came up with the idea of the .223. At first the .222 was to be used.



Kalashnikov designed the gun while he was recovering from a war injury (at least if you believe the Soviet histories).

And the StG44 is really quite different form the AK. Go field strip both guns, or at least compared the field stripped pictures. The receiver concept is TOTALLY different between the two guns. Oddly enough, the StG44 looks more like the G3. And, as someone else mentioned, the AK owes as much to the Garand as the StG44.

Doubtlessly there are similarities, but there's only so many ways to put together a gas gun.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 9:48:11 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 10:12:59 PM EDT
Sorry if I offend someone here, but I really get burned by the ignorance displayed by the statement that the AK was a design ripoff of the Stg44. It really displays the lack of research by the person making the statement.

The similarities are superficial only and are shared by virtually all modern rifles, i.e. gas tube above the barrel, detachable magazine, pistol grip, select fire, intermediate cartridge (or full size battle rifle in the case of the FAL/Cetme/G3).

The Stg44 has a tilting block locking system, bolt handle on the left side, recoil spring in the stock, hinged receiver, a push through safety button, a separate full/semi selector switch.

Mikhail Timofeyevich didn't do a very good job of copying since the AK has a rotating bolt locking system, bolt handle on the right, recoil spring over the bolt carrier, removable dustcover, single selector/safety lever.

If you want to point at designs and yell rip-off, point at the FAL tilting block (oh yeah, they started that design before WWII), hinged receiver, recoil spring in the butt. G3 was derived from the Cetme, which in turn was derived from the Mauser Stg45, but it has the removable buttstock for stripping, hinged receiver (pistol grip/FCG pack).

The Russians has been working on an "Assault Rifle" since 1918 when they developed a select fire rifle using the 6.5mm Japanese cartridge. They continued working on it and developed the M43 cartridge about the same time Germans developed their M43 7.92x33.

Kalashnikov may have been influenced by the general layout of the Stg44, but its doubtful. Sub-machineguns already had a pistol grip and detachable magazine so it doesn't take much thought to include that layout in your rifle design. If it is a ripoff, then every assault rifle with the exception of the bullpups are ripoff copycat designs.

Sorry if I'm steamed. Kalshnikov didn't come up with any original component designs. But he took component concepts and combined them into something that was very functional and is the quintessential assault rifle. He freely acknowledged being influenced by the Garand trigger and the M1 Carbine bolt when he designed the AK. In the same fashion, the AR15 was a unique combination of non-unique design components.
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 12:12:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 3:10:30 AM EDT
Great thread....period. Good job, guys!
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 3:27:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 3:46:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:

... I think that the M16 is here to stay untill there is another great leap in weapons design. That may take 10 years, it may take 100 years.

Just look at muskets. They didn't make all that many changes in them for a long time. Sure they went from match lock to flint lock to percussion caps, but it took several technologies to develope; rifled barrels in the 1700s, ...
I am done taking.



Even rifled barrels developed an unintentional result in firearm accuracy. The main point of the rifled barrel was to ease the process of removing fouled black powder from the barrel. It was only until the barrel was tested that the developer realized what had been achieved.
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 4:17:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dorsai:
Sorry if I offend someone here, but I really get burned by the ignorance displayed by the statement that the AK was a design ripoff of the Stg44. It really displays the lack of research by the person making the statement.

The similarities are superficial only and are shared by virtually all modern rifles, i.e. gas tube above the barrel, detachable magazine, pistol grip, select fire, intermediate cartridge (or full size battle rifle in the case of the FAL/Cetme/G3).

The Stg44 has a tilting block locking system, bolt handle on the left side, recoil spring in the stock, hinged receiver, a push through safety button, a separate full/semi selector switch.

Mikhail Timofeyevich didn't do a very good job of copying since the AK has a rotating bolt locking system, bolt handle on the right, recoil spring over the bolt carrier, removable dustcover, single selector/safety lever.

If you want to point at designs and yell rip-off, point at the FAL tilting block (oh yeah, they started that design before WWII), hinged receiver, recoil spring in the butt. G3 was derived from the Cetme, which in turn was derived from the Mauser Stg45, but it has the removable buttstock for stripping, hinged receiver (pistol grip/FCG pack).

The Russians has been working on an "Assault Rifle" since 1918 when they developed a select fire rifle using the 6.5mm Japanese cartridge. They continued working on it and developed the M43 cartridge about the same time Germans developed their M43 7.92x33.

Kalashnikov may have been influenced by the general layout of the Stg44, but its doubtful. Sub-machineguns already had a pistol grip and detachable magazine so it doesn't take much thought to include that layout in your rifle design. If it is a ripoff, then every assault rifle with the exception of the bullpups are ripoff copycat designs.

Sorry if I'm steamed. Kalshnikov didn't come up with any original component designs. But he took component concepts and combined them into something that was very functional and is the quintessential assault rifle. He freely acknowledged being influenced by the Garand trigger and the M1 Carbine bolt when he designed the AK. In the same fashion, the AR15 was a unique combination of non-unique design components.


+100
couldn't have been said any better, good write up Dorsai!
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 4:22:07 AM EDT
Saying the AK was a "copy" of the Sturmgewehr series is absolutely false. It merely fits in the same combat employment niche that the STG did and may have been inspired by some of the same combat realities. Still, the STG has a bolt that works very differently from the AK's rotary bolt. The trigger mechanism is completely different, with the AK functionally resembling the Garand's mechanism while the STG's resembles earlier German designs. The AK is gas operated-I guess one functional similarity is allowable here, though not all STG prototypes were gas operated. Comparing the two is like saying that a Lada is a copy of a Golf because they're both cars...

Stoner was the boss of the AR development team. Being boss means that you are responsible for what happens, and if it fails YOU take the fall. Being a very savy designer is one of Stoner's traits. Being the kind of boss that lets talented people use their talents is another. And being a good man who doesn't inappropriately take credit for other people's work is still another. Look at any interview with Mr. Stoner about the AR's development, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's always "we" when he talks about how things got done, never "I."
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 9:27:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wingman26:

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.


The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle, Kalashnikov denies it was a copy, but it's hard to deny the truth when it's right in front of you.



+1

I saw an StG 44 on display at the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans (btw, it is a really nice museum). When you see one in person, there is no denying the fact that the AK47 was a copy of it.

Link Posted: 6/25/2005 9:55:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2005 10:16:08 AM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By mo4040:

Originally Posted By Wingman26:

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.


The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle, Kalashnikov denies it was a copy, but it's hard to deny the truth when it's right in front of you.



+1

I saw an StG 44 on display at the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans (btw, it is a really nice museum). When you see one in person, there is no denying the fact that the AK47 was a copy of it.

content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/a/a5/250px-Sturmgewehr_44.jpg



+2

The AK47 Would not exist if not for the StG44. Russians on a whole arent known for being any good at small arms designs. Their most famous guns all copies of western guns

Tokarev TT was a 1911
Makarov was a Walther PP,
AK47 was a StG44
AK74 was a StG44 chambered in a round meant to copy the 5.56

Hell, does anyone realize even the Mosin Nagant wasnt designed by a Russian, but a Belgian

Notice when they make guns that arent copies of western designs, no one notices. The AN-94 for example, which officially replaced the AK74. No one cares about it, everyone still wants the German Based AKM

The SKS was a horrible failure. The only reason it maintains any following is because it is dirt cheap. iIf the AR15 was as cheap as an SKS no one would buy the russian gun at all

Russians arent the only ones to steal from the Germans. Our M60 is our botched version of the MG42/FG42
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 11:28:36 AM EDT
Variable,
If you weren't funny, you'd be tragic? Did you even bother to read the design differences between the AK and the Stg44? Have you bothered to at least look at a schematic of the designs or do you only look at the outside?

The Federov M1916 was a shoulder fired, air cooled, detachable box magazine fed (25rds), gas operated rifle in 6.5x50mm. The design was begun in 1912 and it remained in service from 1916 - 1928. The Russians had already figured out that the future was a smaller caliber, select fire weapon. Federov used the Japanese 6.5x50 rimless cartridge in his design because it was available and had a low enough power threshold that it was controllable. Design of the M43 7.62x39mm cartridge began in 1939. The first examples of what would be designated the SKS45 were tested in combat during the summer of 1944

Kalashnikov started designing firearms while recovering from wounds in the hospital in 1942. His first design was a submachinegun but when he was given samples of the M43 cartridge in early 1944, he designed a carbine. The The technical data package for what would be the AK47 was sent to Moscow for approval in early 1946. Yes it was designed after the Stg44. Would the Russians have developed it if the Germans hadn't invented the Stg44? Probably, since they had already developed the cartridge, the need and had already built the conceptual ancestor. Re-read the prior posts concerning the huge differences in design in every detail.

Lets take the next one. The Tokarev TT was a 1911. I suppose so, in the sense that every handgun in the world that used a tilting barrel lockup with a recoil spring under the barrel is a 1911. You cut a pretty wide swath, don't you? The layout and many design features were certainly copied from Browning. Barrel bushing, swinging link barrel, and the stirrup trigger are clearly 1911 designs. But there are significant differences as well. The hammer, sear, disconnector and mainspring are a completely different design and are assembled in a package that can be removed from the frame as a single assembly. There is no thumb safety. Feed lips are not incorporated in the magazine, but as part of the frame. This is your only example which comes close to reality.

The Makarov is a copy of the Walther PP. Been reading Guns & Ammo have you? However, even they have corrected themselves. Where to begin. Yeah, they look a lot alike on the outside. Blowback operation, recoil spring around the barrel, double action, slide mounted safety. You might want to toss a couple of others in there as copies too. The Browning .380 had a recoil spring around the barrel and was blowback, as was the Mauser Hsc.

The Makarov has a completely different trigger mechanism and the safety/decocker works in the opposite direction of the Walther.

AK74 is an Stg44 chambered in a cartridge copying the 5.56mm. We've already dismissed the Stg44 connection, but you are correct, the USSR decided they needed a high velocity, small caliber rifle after studying the effectiveness of the M16 in Vietnam. Absolutely they copied the idea. Its called learning. If you recall, the Springfield M1903 was a copy of the Mauser M98. We found that the clip loading of the Spanish Mauser M93 rifles in the Spanish American War to be superior to the Krag-Jorgenson. So we copied it. Such a close copy in fact that we lost a patent infringement case and had to pay royalties to Mauser. It didn't stop there. The Germans developed a pointed "Spitzer" bullet that revolutionized smal arms ammunition. Consequently, the M1903-03 cartridge was rendered obsolete and we developed and adopted the .30-06.

The Russians/Soviets were our enemies for a lot of years. They made lots of outrageous claims and in some cases, did blatantly rip off/copy our designs. Their exact copies of the C47 and B29 are classic examples. But it shows your own ignorance when you can't give them credit for what they did do. Late war Yak and Mig fighters were the equal of the Messerschmidts and Focke-Wulfs. The Sturmovick ground attack aircraft was essentially unmatched by the Germans or the west. The T-34 was the best tank of WWII and revolutionized tank design. The PKM GPMG is a far superior design than the M60 machinegun and is still in widespread use while we have phased out the M60 for the Belgian designed M240.

Wait, didn't you cite the Mosin Nagant rifle as an example of what they couldn't design? Hmm, I guess our troops shouldn't be carrying the the M249 SAW and M240 MG, both designed in Belgium, or the M9 pistol, designed in Italy (based on the German P-38).

Try not to be so egocentric and take a look at history for what it is, not what you want it to be. Also, try and research your gunstore myths a little before signing your name to them. You'll look smarter.
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 4:51:43 PM EDT
Funny how people can't seem to read the posts full of the correct information and skip right to the pictures and comment on them
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 5:32:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2005 5:33:40 PM EDT by Ekie]
Good post Malysh. And this about sums it up:


Originally Posted By Malysh:

There was an interview/article about Sullivan in an old Small Arms review where he states that Eugene Stoner was the inventor of the AR-15 but that he and Fremont were the designers, and goes to some length to explain what he feels are the differences between an inventor and a designer. If you want a copy of this article, you can email me and I will be happy to send a copy to you. It was very interesting! If Sullivan felt Stoner should have credit for this invention, who am I to argue with him?? Who are we to argue with him?





Originally Posted By Malysh:
The AR-10 and AR-15 stocks were never bakelite. They were hand wrapped fiberglass, and later on, something Colt's called Fiberite.




I hear that Bakelite thing alot, and you are correct ArmaLite would never have used old school Bakelite in a high tech weapon like the AR-15.

BTW, if I remember correctly asbestos was used on some Hollywood made AR-10 buttstocks.

Link Posted: 6/25/2005 5:33:51 PM EDT
In regards to Kalashnikov, far as I am concerned his rifle is a Garand with the action flipped over, with a detachable mag, and chambered for the round he was told to use. I don't see any STG44 design influence, but what I know, I don't watch TV.
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 5:35:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2005 6:28:28 PM EDT by KnightofTheOldeCode]
But Most people, Even those in the "know" don't normally know about Sullivan or Fremont, Whenever one hears the history of the AR15 talked about it's always said Stoner, The others are seldom mentioned, let alove given credit. Don't you find that to be true?

Originally Posted By Malysh:
Gene Stoner was L. James Sullivan and Robt Fremont's boss at ArmaLite. These 2 fine designers have received and deserve plenty of credit for the AR-15. So does Gene Stoner. He didn't just get all the credit, he also put time in helping design the rifle. He was sent to the Aberdeen AR-15 rifle trials and the Army Arctic trials in Alaska. This was not just a case of the boss getting to go to the big meetings, he was intimately involved in all phases of the major design sub assemblies and they had to be approved by him as well.

ArmaLite was not adverse to sending the assistant engineers out in the field, either. They sent both Gene Stoner, and another assistant, Art Miller to Holland at separate times during the start up for the manufacturing of the AR-10. Miller helped greatly in the conversion of the dimensions from SAE to metric. No small task.

Stoner probably does get too much credit for designing the .223 cartridge from what I've read. That was primary Sullivan and Fremont. It was basically a refinement of the existing .222 Remington cartridge. Although they used an already existing cartridge I don't think it diminishes their achievement any more than it does Stoner's getting some credit for the design of the AR-15.

Stoner designed the lockwork of the AR-15 rifle, This includes the trigger, hammer, disconnector and selector lever. It was not merely a scaled down AR-10 lockwork. The US Patent Office copies shown in referrence books clearly credit Stoner with these designs. I find it doubtful that he would have robbed Sullivan and Fremont of the credit for these assemblies had they designed them.

If Stoner, in your words, was "credited so totally with the AR-15" I don't think we would have heard as much about Sullivan and Fremont as we have. I also think that either one, or both of them would have made some bad comments about Stoner in all the years that have gone by. I have never personally read a bad comment from either of them about Gene Stoner.
There was an interview/article about Sullivan in an old Small Arms review where he states that Eugene Stoner was the inventor of the AR-15 but that he and Fremont were the designers, and goes to some length to explain what he feels are the differences between an inventor and a designer. If you want a copy of this article, you can email me and I will be happy to send a copy to you. It was very interesting! If Sullivan felt Stoner should have credit for this invention, who am I to argue with him?? Who are we to argue with him?

The AR-10 and AR-15 stocks were never bakelite. They were hand wrapped fiberglass, and later on, something Colt's called Fiberite.

The Swedish Ljungman gas system, and also the French MAS, lacked a major design feature that Stoner solely invented by himself. The rotary bolt he invented had gas ports in it so that during recoil, these ports would rotate to a closed position and the gas pressure would start to decline in the bolt and carrier. Stoner felt this meant the rifle didn't need an adjustable gas port. There are pros and cons to the lack of the system being adjustable, of course.

I agree with you that Stoner didn't DESIGN the AR-18. But, using the definition that Sullivan uses, he did INVENT it. Take a good look at Stoner's AR-16 and tell me that Sullivan didn'nt use it as a pattern for the AR-18. They are almost the same weapon except that the mag well is a little different and the caliber is different. Internally they are almost identical.
ArmaLite did not design the AR-18 as a fall back in case the US gov didn't adopt the AR-15. They developed it for lesser industrial countries, so that they could manufacture under license, a rifle made of carbon steel where main sub assemblies could be welded together, instead of aluminum forgings which were tricky to manufacture and far more expensive than a stamped steel receiver. They did offer the design to the US government, of course.

All weapons inventors study the great inventions that came before them. Many try to improve upon what has come before them. This includes Sam Colt and everybody else, including Mikhail Kalashnikov. Even the great Browning studied earlier designs. But Browning I think is at the top the heap and light years beyond any weapons inventor the world has ever known. No way to prove this, but I bet Mr. Stoner would have been uncomfortable being mentioned in the same sentence with Browning.

The Stoner 62 and 63 systems were great inventions! Too bad they were never adopted by the gov., except for the limted use of the SEALS.

Thanks to several military rifle authors we can all discuss the 3 driving forces of the AR-15 rifle together and we know of all 3: Stoner, Sullivan, and Fremont. It would be a disservice if any of these 3 brilliant men were not known, or credited in the history of the AR-15.

Thanks for bringing your opinion on this topic, whether we agree or not. It's a valid question to discuss. And the more it's discussed, the more Sullivan and Fremont will be remembered for their large contributions.




Link Posted: 6/25/2005 5:37:03 PM EDT
I thought the SKS used a tappet system not a direct piston?

Originally Posted By Malysh:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.



How so?



Not so.

Simonov designed the SKS, Kalashnikov designed the AK47. The gas sytems are similar, but that's about it. By that time the gas piston was not a new idea. The cartridge calilber was not dictated bny the designers. The SKS was not a knockoff of the AK47.



_DR is 100% correct, BTW. I was too pooped to give this point of Knight of the Olde Codes the attention _DR gave it. The only thing the SKS and the AK-47 have in common is the gas piston, period. Not even the lockworks have any similarity. BTW: Kalashnikov studied the M-1 Garand and the M-1 carbines design features and incorporated the Garands basic trigger and hammer design, and a very similar 2 lug bolt from the M-1 carbine in his AK-47. I don't think Dr. K. has been overcredited for his achievements, either. To this day he talks of John Garand as one of his great influences in arms design.

If you can come up with a totally new invention that doesn't borrow from the existing body of knowledge of the items that came before it, I would love to shake your hand!!!

Link Posted: 6/25/2005 5:44:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode:
But Most people, Even those in the "know" don't normally know about Sullivan or Fremont, Whenever one hear the history of the AR15 talked about it's always said Stoner, The other seldom mentioned. Don't you find that to be true?



I won't argue with that.
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 5:47:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2005 6:31:13 PM EDT by KnightofTheOldeCode]
Hey guy's don't forget this topic is about The AR15 not the AK or Stu44, lol. and Sorry if I'm repeating anything you guys had already said. +1 to everyone. Not a bad topic huh? If I do say so myself, lol. GHPorter, Wasn't Stoner hired by Sullivan? I thought Stoner worked for him?
Kalashnikov copied the concept of the assault rifle outline from the Sturmgewehr, but internally they are nothing alike, The AK was fairly original. I say fairly because he actually based the trigger group, bolt and other features of his AK on the M1 and M1 carbine. Also the Germans didn't invent the idea of an assault rifle, That was a Russian concept originally. small arms designer Vladimir Fedirov invented the first true assault rifle in 1916.....

Originally Posted By Wingman26T

Originally Posted By sysop:
Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS.


The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle, Kalashnikov denies it was a copy, but it's hard to deny the truth when it's right in front of you.

Link Posted: 6/25/2005 5:54:33 PM EDT
7.63x39 was actually Italian designed believe it or not. The AK is very different from the Stu44. If you look at Mikhail's early sub machine gun you'd see he was fairly original, He copied more internally from the M1 when creating his AK then he ever did the Stu44.

Originally Posted By NODDAH:
Don't want the thread to go off topic. But handling the mags and field striping the Stg 44.

1. Mag Design
2. Bolt Design
3. Gas Design
4. Bullet Design concept 7.92x33 vs 7.62x39

Sure seems like Mr. AK took notice at the very least. I find it funny that the Soviets copied or stole so much of German designs after the WWII. (Us too) But somehow it is like pissing on someones back to suggest that the above might have some merit.

Link Posted: 6/25/2005 5:58:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2005 6:00:00 PM EDT by valblade]
I guess I'm going to sue the history channel. They gave me false info. What jerks. Most people that used the ak47's to fight wars with could care less who the hell created it. Do crazy africans care what color the stock is. do you think that osama's friends give a rats ass who came up with the idea for the ak. Everyone does too much talking and painting magazines and stocks and not enough shooting.
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 6:00:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2005 6:33:30 PM EDT by KnightofTheOldeCode]
Malysh, Thanks for you're awesome contribution, Could You email me the Sullivan article you mention please. TacticalPenguin. levers are the best, thanks for not neglecting they role in the evolution of arms, in a way some could make an argument hat the Henry way the first assault rifle, lol
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 6:10:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Corey:

And that is why I love guys who have early register dates but low post counts.

Outstanding post!

Corey




+100


LB
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 7:59:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By King_of_All_Tyrants:

Originally Posted By valblade:
History channel says ak was a copy of a german gun. They took over a german plant and found the plans.
Stoner came up with the idea of the .223. At first the .222 was to be used.



Kalashnikov designed the gun while he was recovering from a war injury (at least if you believe the Soviet histories).

And the StG44 is really quite different form the AK. Go field strip both guns, or at least compared .


go find me one of each and i'll do whateeeeever you want with them as long as i can keep them afterwards
and i still say the AK-47 was an outer DESIGN knockoff of the StG44
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 8:46:14 PM EDT
So Blanco, I assume the HK33, Sig550, FNC, AR-180, etc. are all outer design knockoffs as well?

Let me see, the Webley and Enfield revolvers are knockoffs of the Smith & Wesson top break revolvers. I forget, who is a knockoff of the others, Smith & Wesson, Colt or Ruger (DA revolvers).

Hmm, we need to take this a step further. Pamela Anderson is knockoff of Marilyn Monroe because they're both blonde, have 2 tits, etc.

Do you really think Kalashnikov said to himself, I'm going to make this totally different on the inside, but I'll make it look kind of like it on the outside. Yeah, thats how to design a gun.

If you were joking, my apologies for taking you seriously. If you weren't.....
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 8:49:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dorsai:
So Blanco, I assume the HK33, Sig550, FNC, AR-180, etc. are all outer design knockoffs as well?

Let me see, the Webley and Enfield revolvers are knockoffs of the Smith & Wesson top break revolvers. I forget, who is a knockoff of the others, Smith & Wesson, Colt or Ruger (DA revolvers).

Hmm, we need to take this a step further. Pamela Anderson is knockoff of Marilyn Monroe because they're both blonde, have 2 tits, etc.

Do you really think Kalashnikov said to himself, I'm going to make this totally different on the inside, but I'll make it look kind of like it on the outside. Yeah, thats how to design a gun.

If you were joking, my apologies for taking you seriously. If you weren't.....


you're right about every one!! lol. you gotta admit that the AK-47 DOES look like an StG44...


lol Pamela Anderson a knock off of Marilyn Monroe...funny....*i hate Pamela Anderson...*
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 9:26:07 PM EDT
Form follows function. You need a receiver to contain the operating parts: bolt, bolt carrier, FCG. You have a choice of how you feed teh magazine. Bottom, top or the side. There were a couple of early SMGs, the STEN, Sterling, Erma that fed from the side. The Johnson LMG and the German FG42 also tried side feeding magazines. In rifle calibers, it didn't work so well as the weight really unbalanced the rifle.

Top feed? It worked for the BREN gun and the Australian Owen and F-1 SMGs fed from the top, but that causes problems with the sights as you have to offset them. Ever looked at a BREN gun? Doesn't matter if you're left handed or not, you shoot that baby right handed only.

Where does that leave us? Feeding from the bottom, which is why most shoulder fired weapons with detachable magazines feed from the bottom. Ergonomically, its been proven to be the best choice.

Gas tube on top or the bottom? They started out on the bottom. But when designers started looking at ways to lower the bore line so as to incorporate straight line stocks for less muzzle rise, they moved the gas tube above the barrel.

Lets finish the design. Sights. Americans, and to a small extent the British, really started the move towards a peep sight on the rear of the receiver. Until then, rear sights were a notched rear sight blade located ahead of the action. So it made sense to keep it where everyone was used to.

Whats left? Buttstock, handguards & pistol grip. The buttstock really doesn't need discussion, does it? They go on the back. Handguards? They go on the front. Kalashnikov's were much better than the sheetmetal Stg handguards. Have you ever shot much with sheet metal handguards? If you weren't wearing a thick glove, I doubt you could fire 3 magazines without burning off some skin. That leaves the pistol grip. The Soviets adopted it rather late, but the PPS-42 had a folding stock and a pistol grip. Prior Soviet designs had a wooden stock similar to a conventional bolt action, but designers all over the world were moving to pistol grip designs. Why? Ergonomics again.

When it comes down to it, it would be surprising if the Stg44 and Ak47 didn't look a lot alike. They were both designed to fill the same niche, so why wouldn't they look similar?

And since this is an AR15 board, the AR follows the same design philosophy, as does every assault rifle in the world except for the bullpups.

Why do all modern semi-automatic pistols use a magazine in the grip instead of a clip loaded entegral magazine in front of the trigger guard? Because ergonomically designers have all decided that locating it in the butt makes the most sense.

Why do most sub-compact cars look very much alike? 3 wheel designs with a canopy type entry have been tried, but they didn't/don't work well so the rest have settled with 4 wheels, one on each corner. Why? Because it works and it works well.
Link Posted: 6/25/2005 9:47:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode:
GHPorter, Wasn't Stoner hired by Sullivan? I thought Stoner worked for him?



There were two Sullivans at ArmaLite.
Link Posted: 6/26/2005 3:25:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/26/2005 3:37:13 AM EDT


I personally belive we are at the peak of small arms developement. It will take another huge developement of new technologies before we see truely new weapons concepts to hit the battlefields.

I am done taking.

That huge development may be here. Well, not in weaponry, but ammo. Check this link:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/dn7557

It tells of new non-lethal "electric bullets" that have a patent in progress. 25K volts thats goes right through clothing, and I assume body armor.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top