Is this rifle anything close to the Stoner 63 as far as reliability and quality?  I have heard it would have been more reliable than the M-16 due to the gas system design.  Somewhere I heard the gas system was similar to the AK from a stand point of being separate from the bolt assembly?  Looking at buying one and need to know if anyone has experience with this rifle.

I am probably telling you more than I know...

I dont know anything about this rifle except I got to tinker with one at a local gun shop a few weeks ago.  The salesman at the shop had nothing but good to say about it but then again he was trying to sell it to me.  

here's a link to the Robinson Armament Co. web page if you want info from the manufacturer

http://www.robarm.com/

It accepts M16/AR15 mags. Has the AK gas system. Barrels removeable w/o special tools (but hard to do). Receiver is stamped, but made out of high-grade aluminum. Has adjustable gas system- very good feature. Plastic is good except for buttstock- kinda cheesy. Iron sights are cheesy too. Has capability to fire in the Bren (top-feed) configuration. Big deal.

If the sights and buttstock were on par with an AR15, this would be worth every penny.

The old AR15.com forums have several threads on the M96, all of which give very good reviews from their owners.

The only slightly negative comment, which is about to be remedied by Robinson, is that the barrels are not chrome lined.  Not sure exactly when but they will so chrome line the bores.

You might take a look at the old forums and do a search to read the info yourself.  The M96 sounds like a very nice rifle.

CMOS

dear vergeltungswaffe;

my impression is that you are hesitant to jump in on a regular ar15,  first you ask of the bushmaster m17s now the m96.  the ar15 is ok - the gas system on a well built rifle is nothing to be afraid of - was made to be lightweight and with the ammo we have now it works fine ( i haven't cleaned my rifles in a while - just keep shooitng them!) - stick with a quality brand ar ie: colt, bushmaster - and that sucker ought to work just fine.

if you want a 'sporter' type weapon with a more 'rugged' gas system - then get yourself a daewoo ar100 - most likely the finest cross between an ar and a ak. takes m16 mags - the stock folds and you can stick a steak knife on the end and be evil.

steve

Thanks for the info... things often printed by the manufacturing are not always true.  I try to get real life information before I put down the money.

Steve M., I am not hesitant on the AR's only about rifles I am about to buy and do not have.  

I have
Colts
7.62 x 39 Carbine Blue Label
.233 Carbine Blue Label
.233 HB Blue Label
.233 Target Blue Label
.233 DCM Frank White Special, post ban
Bushmaster
.233 Pistol with 11.5" barrel (built Aug 94)
.233 Dissipator
.233 20" Target
M-17S (brought it last weekend)
Springfield MIA NM
AK 47's and SKS
Russian AK Hunters
Bolt Guns
Pistols
On, and on, and on....

Don't worry about me and AR's, they're my favorite... I blame the Army.  I am just greedy and want one of each.  I believe Alabama will be the last state to following CA type laws so I have a little time.

Thanks Guys

I thought the receivers were stainless steel
and welded, not stamped. I don't know what
he's producing now but the early models were
stainless. I had the op to handle one at
Knob Creek. Impressive. But remember this, it
is *not* a Stoner. And just look what can be
done with the AR15.

My bad. The receivers ARE stainless steel. Musta had a case of "thinking one thing and typing another."

The receivers are good quality and improved over the AR.

Until some army actually issues the M96 in quantity, and it becomes subject to the hard use/abuse that only young soldiers can dish out, I'll consider the M96 a good quality commercial rifle and nothing more.  Those fellows who own them seem rather satisfied with their purchase, despite the poor sighting system, which is all well and good.  However, I'd wager that very few M96s have seen much use other than at shooting ranges.  Some of the excitement over this rifle is disproportionate to what has actually been accomplished with it, IMO.  One guy, at another board, is already saying the US should dump the M-16 and replace it with the M96!  There is room for improvement in any product, to include the M96.  I'm holding off on purchase until it has a proper rear sight.

My thoughts exactly.

[b] EXACTLY  [/b]

All those in favor of going back to a poor version on the A1 sighting sysem, and paying approx. $1,300 for the privilege, [strike] raise your right hand [/strike], buy an M96.

Also, the buttstock is thin and flimsy, IMO.

Every other feature of the M96 is superior to the AR, IMO.

161 posts? Do you LIVE on the computer?

Naaah, I just paid the board moderator $500 to boost my # of posts artificially, so I can look like some kind of expert!!!!!

Actually, been here since the first day the new board opened up. [b] AND [/b] got into a few lively debates.  [:D]

Wobblin' = Wobbly
Goblin = Gobbler

Okay, its uncool to play with peoples handles, but I couldn't resist.

Its NOT the first time I used it. Yer just noticing????  [:D]

Apologies.