User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 9:05:41 PM EDT
[#1]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 9:09:17 PM EDT
[#2]
Well, yes and no. The bolt, barrel extension, carrier and buffer are different parts that do not retrofit to existing AR platforms so you have receivers. The STANAG mags are used by numerous weapons including the SA80.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 9:20:54 PM EDT
[#3]
If it ain't direct gas impingment, it ain't an AR-10/15/16, but a morph.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 9:21:59 PM EDT
[#4]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 9:25:23 PM EDT
[#5]
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 9:28:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Interesting question.
My DI told me it was a 5.56mm, magazine fed, gas operated, air-cooled, shoulder fired, weapon.  Based on current mainstream definitions I think it would be an AR or an AR variant. The weapon system was designed an built off of the current AR platform, but I see your point -- as the platform evolves with new improvements there would be a point when it could morph into a completely new system. But that point would be somewhat of a subjective assessment. In a basic sense the criteria could consist of a percentage of parts interchangeability, and magazine compatibility. Maybe a similar argument could be made for current production 1911 pistols, lots variants, and lot of current factory installed modifications from JMB original design. But I think that is one of the attractions to the AR platform, it can be easily tweaked and modified to fit the users desires, and still have the same basic functional operation and ergonomics. By the way, it took me years out of the service to stop calling my semi auto AR15A2 a M16, so if we change the name now . . .I am never going to keep up.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 9:55:24 PM EDT
[#7]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2005 10:31:32 PM EDT
[#8]
It's an AR in the same way a Colt 9mm SMG is an AR.
JMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 4:13:22 AM EDT
[#9]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 4:28:33 AM EDT
[#10]
Sounds more like an M16 than an AR15. Was COLT's gas piston design back in the '60s an AR? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 5:16:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Interesting! Wasn't that an attempt to get round royalty payments? I may be wrong. If that was the case then surely Colt would argue it wasn't an AR15. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 5:22:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Yes, the Colt 703 was a AR.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 5:32:38 AM EDT
[#13]
So would you agree that it is the lower receiver that dictates whether it is really an AR or not? Is the lower therefore the defining feature?
There is a point to my posing these questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 5:43:54 AM EDT
[#14]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 5:52:08 AM EDT
[#15]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 5:55:59 AM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 5:59:21 AM EDT
[#17]
never heard that, don't have my BR handy to check the dates.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 6:00:46 AM EDT
[#18]
Not at all, just trying to get inside what makes an AR an AR? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 6:02:12 AM EDT
[#19]
IIRC, didn't Colt make payments to ArmaLite? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 6:04:22 AM EDT
[#20]
I don’t think so, the direct gas system was a copy of the French Mas28-31. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 6:19:57 AM EDT
[#21]
AFAIK, the AR-18 patent stayed with Armalite. I wasn't aware that COLT paid royalties on the AR15 patent after they bought it.
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? Like I said, my copy of BR is in a different county and these academic discussions are exactly what I use it for. My brain is already too crowded (or just too small in general) to maintain all the minutuae. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:17:28 AM EDT
[#22]
The gas system was different enough that ArmaLite got a patent on it, and then sold it to Colt's.
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.
Yes, 4.5 percent, if I remember correctly.
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)
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?
Ooops, I see you already covered that. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:28:14 AM EDT
[#23]
I didn't know that, I thought the AR-18 were always gas piston designs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:34:47 AM EDT
[#24]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:35:46 AM EDT
[#25]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:41:10 AM EDT
[#26]
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). |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:49:42 AM EDT
[#27]
that makes two of us, didn't know the AR16 was direct gas, thought it was an AR18 only in .30. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:57:03 AM EDT
[#28]
getting back on track
I would the gas uppers are AR15/M16/M4 variants -- I would say the lower is the specific determining factor, as long as one stay's in the general vicinity of magasinze fed, gas operate, air cooled. *I even think the Belt versions are variants, and the blow back SMG's -- but I would hesitate with the bolt action .50's |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:59:42 AM EDT
[#29]
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):  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:14:54 AM EDT
[#30]
So I guess what really defines an AR is the sum of the parts and the lower receiver. If what we are saying is that the basic concept of the configured weapon is true to the original intent then it follows that this latest generation of piston driven uppers are true AR's much as the historical versions are considered to be so.
The point about the B52 and Sherman were well illustrated; just because you change out the trigger or carrier or any other part for that matter, it doesn't become a separate weapon in its on right. Am I getting close? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:23:04 AM EDT
[#31]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:51:41 AM EDT
[#32]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:58:31 AM EDT
[#33]
I don't know about the practicality of using Kalifornistan DOJ rulings as a basis for broad legal definitions
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:21:59 AM EDT
[#34]
In Kanada we register the lower (all AR's are registered)
NFA weapons are lower registered... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
