Talk:Stoner 63

M2 Tripod

Okay, lets be perfectly clear about this. Its not the M2's tripod, its the M2 tripod (more accurately: Tripod, M2). The M2 tripod is for use with .30 caliber machine guns, such as the M1919A4, M1919A6, M60, and even the M240. The M60 and M240 require their relevant T&E and the proper tripod adapter. The M2 machine gun uses the Tripod, M3, a heavier version visibly similar to the M2, which was also used with the Mk 19 40mm machine gun.

There is no reason why the tripod should link to any machine gun. -- Thatguy96 18:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The M2 tripod was a component of the M1919 Browning system. The later M122 used with the M60 is an aluminum (IIRC) version of the steel M2. I changed the link because it was originally pointed at the M2 Browning machine gun (which uses an M3 tripod) and felt that, if someone was really looking for a picture of the M2 tripod they'd at least find a picture, eh? Deathbunny 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Found someone actually has an article for the M2 tripod and recreated link to point to it. What you find on wikipedia... Deathbunny 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The M122 tripod is NOT aluminum. It is steel, just like the M2, and in fact many of the M122s in US military service are M2s which were restamped "M122" during an arsenal overhaul, and then issued with the pintle and T&E mechanism for the M60 replacing those for the M1919 Browning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.63.56 (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MINIMI?

Did this weapon inspire the MINIMI LMG? 121.218.25.164 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the Minimi was designed to fulfill a similar task, but they share no commonality. Koalorka (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?

The Mk 23 mod 0 is the designation for the Heckler and Koch SOCOM pistol. Is this a case of same name problem or is there a mistake here?

Both the US Army and US Navy systems technically incorporate a category as part of the complete full designation. Each category starts at 1 and increases abitrarily as new systems are adopted within the category. There is no mistake and the designations are not technically the same. The Stoner 63A in the Commando configuration was designated Machine Gun, 5.56mm, Mk 23 Mod 0, while the H&K OHWS was designated Pistol, Caliber .45, Mk 23 Mod 0. There are hundreds of other examples of such confusion, such as Pistol, 9mm, Mk 24 Mod 0 (Sig P226) and Submachine Gun, 9mm, Mk 24 Mod 0 (S&W Model 76). This comes from the fact that the full designations are rarely spelled out in common usage, and are often unknown to the majority of people, including users. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Stoner 63 vs. Rodman SAW

I see you are repeating Peter Kokalis' story about the Stoner 63's rejection by the Army in favor of the Rodman SAW. The problem is that this didn't happen in 1963. Rodman Laboratory didn't get into small arms design until the responsibility was transferred from Springfield Armory prior to the latter's closure in 1968. Moreover, design work didn't begin on the 6mm SAW cartridge until late 1971, and the cartridge's specifications weren't finalized until May 1972. WECOM was testing the Stoner 63 on behalf of the USMC as late as September 1971, and the USMC didn't give up on it until December of the same year. --D.E. Watters (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, Mr. Kokalis best check his dates. Why then were the Ordnance people prejudiced against the Stoner system? What led to the dismissal? Koalorka (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We really don't know how much of the prejudice was real, imagined, or invented. For instance, in the fall of 1964, AMC General Counsel Kendall Barnes discussed potential licensing rights for the Stoner 63 with Cadillac Gage president Frederick Bauer. That is pretty odd behavior if the Army was actively trying to avoid adopting it. However, the USMC was certainly not shy about claiming the Army was prejudiced against the Stoner. Within days of the first Barnes/Bauer meeting, the Marines' vocal complaints led to the Army being pressured by the DOD to initiate the Small Arms Weapon Systems (SAWS) study (not be be confused with the later Squad Automatic Weapon trials). All of the variants of the Stoner were featured prominently during the SAWS trials, which ran from 1965 to 1966. The gas port pressure mismatch between M193 loaded with Ball powder and M196 loaded with IMR was never solved. Yet, everything else has seemed to cope with it since then. Perhaps the USMC gave up on the Stoner in 1971 because they had been funding its RDT&E for eight years with no payoff in sight. With the Army launching the Squad Automatic Weapon program and the spectre of tightening service budgets in the Vietnam drawdown, it had to be really tempting for the USMC brass to let the Army foot the entire bill for the SAW's RDT&E. While I don't dispute that the Army was hoping for a SAW in something other than 5.56mm, it seems unlikely that they sabotaged the Stoner specifically in favor of the Rodman SAW. The USMC contract with Cadillac Gage was cancelled months before Rodman (or anyone else) could have ever produced a 6mm SAW prototype. --D.E. Watters (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: The port pressure conflict between M193 (loaded with Ball powder) and M196 (loaded with IMR) couldn't have surfaced before April 28, 1964 at the earliest, as the US Army didn't approve WC846 powder for use with Army-issue M193 until then.

The 1965 SAWS report from the US Army Infantry Board indicated that prior to the SAWS trials, the Army had only conducted military potential tests of the Stoner 63 on behalf of ARPA. At the same time, the USMC had conducted its own service and troop tests of the Stoner 63. According to the USAIB report, the Army's pre-SAWS testing had indicated that the Stoner 63 MG was marginal in operating power and deficient in barrel life. However in November 1964, the Army Materiel Command ordered the Army Test & Evaluation Command to initiate engineering and service tests of the Stoner 63. However, the planning for these tests were postponed in order to coordinate them with the requirements of the SAWS trials ordered by the Army Chief of Staff. (The USAIB was subordinate to TECOM, which itself was subordinate to the AMC.)

In their 1966 SAWS program report, Combat Developments Command Experimentation Command specifically blamed many of the Stoner 63 MG's malfunctions on the port pressure conflict, as well as a batch of defective belt links and insensitive primers. (CDCEC was not part of the AMC. As the name implies, it was part of the Combat Developments Command, which was on equal footing with the AMC and the Continental Army Command.)

According to the 1968 "Report of the M16 Rifle Review Program - Volume 11," the Army's Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development submitted a fact sheet to the Army Chief of Staff in September 1964. In the fact sheet, Army Weapons Command had claimed that the Stoner 63 family had insufficient barrel life, weak belt pull, stock breakage while launching grenades, insufficient operating energy under adverse conditions, and unreliable tracer functioning in the machine gun. (WECOM was part of the AMC.) The same 1968 report states that in January 1968, the Army Chief of Staff wrote to the USMC Commandant agreeing to a joint testing program for the Stoner 63 MG.

All three of these reports should still be available for free download through DTIC, although they may no longer display the download links. If you run a search for the XM207 on Google Books, you can find references to it in congressional appropriation hearings running through FY71. (Oddly, they only give a snippet view. It isn't as though the hearing transcripts could be copyrighted.) The timeline for the final USMC/AMC tests of the Stoner 63 are covered in the 1972 GAO report "Need for Improved Financial Management in Use of Project Orders by the Department of the Army". It wasn't solely about the Stoner 63, nor did it specifically ID the system as the Stoner 63. But seriously, how many rifle/carbine/MG families existed during the late '60/early '70s that were also being tested by the AMC on the USMC's tab? This report was also available online at one point from the GAO website. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just reread Kokalis' article that you cited. He was clearly sold a "sea story". Besides the conflicts I mentioned above, he also claims that Rodman Laboratory conducted the tests that sandbagged the Stoner. This would have clearly been out of their range of responsibilities as Rodman Lab was tasked with R&D. They created new weapons, developed product improvements for existing weapons, and evaluated new construction techniques and materials. Evaluation tests of complete weapons would have been conducted by TECOM at Aberdeen and Ft. Benning (Infantry Board). --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So can we remove that section? Some guy (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No need, I have already filtered out the Rodman-related inaccuracies. Koalorka (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Found an earlier USMC combat evaluation

In February 9, 1966, representatives from the Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center and Cadillac Gage brought 9 Stoner LMG and 1 rifle in a visit to the 3rd Marine Division in DaNang. These were then issued to the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion and used in combat during Operation Taut Bow. The Stoners were then to be passed on to the 3rd Marine Regiment at the beginning of March.[1] --D.E. Watters (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture references....

Any objections to remove the Pop Culture section per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Pop_culture? Neither references appear to be even remotely notable.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Image of SEAL with Stoner LMG

Is it just me or is that actually an M60? the gas tube is definitely underneath the barrel whereas its on top on the Stoner. Plus the ammo feed looks a lot more like an m60... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.164 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The gas tube is only above the barrel in the rifle, carbine, and survival rifle configurations. In the LMG, MMG, FMG, Auto Rifle, and Commando configurations, the receiver is inverted compared to the other configurations, and has the gas tube below the barrel. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

AR Mistake

I changed the AR description to read that it fires from an "open bolt" instead of the "closed bolt" which is an error. I own one and know this as is my webpage is used for reference in this article. Mongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.82.221 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone provide details about this?

However, due to its complexity and high maintenance requirements (especially when compared to the new M16), the design was rejected

Can someone flesh this out? Why would this weapon have higher maintenance requirements, as they appear to be very similar weapons. And why is an LMG being compared to a rifle? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference

The archive link in reference 10, " Watters, Daniel E. A 5.56X45mm "Timeline". The 5.56 X 45mm: 1967-1969 Archived 2007-05-04 at the Wayback Machine.. Access Date: 21 February 2008", the link links to Watters, Daniel E. A 5.56X45mm "Timeline". The 5.56 X 45mm: 1974-1985 furthermore a "1967-1969" does not exist, only "1967-1973" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap Camouflage Pattern I (talk • contribs) 08:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

5.56x45NATO

I suppose it was for the early 5.56x45 cartridge, not the later 5.56x45NATO cartridge, which de facto necessitated a different twist rate of the barrel rifling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.23.224 (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)