To quote Paul Harvey, Now,.....the rest of the story.

[img]http://www.c2i2.com/~mikeval/images/AR-10/AR10%20Small/ar10-6s.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.c2i2.com/~mikeval/images/AR-10/AR10-6.jpg]Page Six[/url]
[img]http://www.c2i2.com/~mikeval/images/AR-10/AR10%20Small/ar10-7s.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.c2i2.com/~mikeval/images/AR-10/AR10-1.jpg]Page Seven[/url]
[img]http://www.c2i2.com/~mikeval/images/AR-10/AR10%20Small/ar10-8s.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.c2i2.com/~mikeval/images/AR-10/AR10-1.jpg]Page Eight[/url]
[img]http://www.c2i2.com/~mikeval/images/AR-10/AR10%20Small/AR10-9s.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.c2i2.com/~mikeval/images/AR-10/AR10-1.jpg]Page Nine[/url]

The AR-10 failed in the trials with the U.S. Army mainly because the composite barrel on the test rifle (a radical new design) Burst during testing. IIRC, Small Arms of World 12th Edition has a picture of the test rifle, with burst barrel. How different the '60s might have been for our boys in uniform if the AR-10 had won the 7.62MM trials......

Scott

How would the 60's been different?

Because they would have been exposed to the proper care and maintenance of the rifles in peacetime. Perhaps the M16 project still would have happened, but with two weapons systems kept in use. The AR-10 for long range situations, and the AR-15 (possibly) for close combat. In any event, if the AR-10 and THEN the AR-15 had entered U.S. service, our troops would have been MUCH more familiar with the AR-15 and its proper maintenance and such.

Scott