Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

Status
Not open for further replies.
"...Didn't Intend It for Civilians..." Wasn't intended to be a main battle rifle either.
Stoner didn't own or hold a patent on the AR anything. Armalite did. They sold the rights to Colt in 1959.
 
Some of us who carried them would argue that the M-16 is no advantage over the AK-47. Both resulted from changes in military thinking due to recent combat experiences.
I just found a good medium, he's going to put me in touch with the spirits of Custer, Alvin York, Ed McGivern, John M. Browning.....
 
Also, regarding the McNamara angle, let's not forget who was the AR-15's first big proponent in the military—USAF general and SAC commander Curtis LeMay. He and McNamara had worked together closely in late WWII at introducing the concept of using statistics and science to improve the efficiency of warfare. It's no surprise that McNamara would embrace LeMay's support of the AR-15 as a more efficient alternative to the traditionalist M14.
Click to expand...

Here's what Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story" (no, its not the entire story, but there are some relevant details ;))

Gen LeMay was in a bind. His Air Force security forces got their weapons and support from the Army. They were armed with the M1 Carbine (and variants), and the Army was dropping the carbine.

That meant no more carbines for his airbase guards, and no more carbine parts, either. The M1 Garand rifle wasn't considered a good option (it was going to be replaced, too). According to what I've read (and as always, possibly not the entire truth) LeMay was introduced to Stoner (and his AR rifle) "at a party", and found it a suitable replacement for the M1 carbine for his airbase security troops.

It was MacNamara's "whiz kids" that decided it would be just a peachy keen general infantry rifle, and at that time, their word was golden. SO, after much attempted evasion by the Army (who had many individuals who didn't want the AR, especially because of its .22 caliber cartridge) we got the M16.

I have seen nothing that states Stoner designed his AR as a superior weapon for our troops, other than the "statement" from his family in the NBC article.

What I have seen is reports that Stoner designed the rifle as a way of demonstrating the capabilities of the new alloys and plastics he was working with in aerospace design.

Personally, I find this to be much more likely.
 
While designed for military use it was not accepted for quite a while. The rifle in a semi-auto version was 1st sold to civilians in 1963. It wasn't adopted by the military for another year, in 1964.
 
If what they say about the AR-15 is the truth then I wonder how Eugene Stoner's children and grandchildren would explain his state of mind in the early 1990s when he revived his old 1950s AR-10 project while working at Knight's Armament on the SR-25 (Stoner Rifle AR-10 + AR-15). A lot of SR-25s were sold to civilians and surely he knew that would happen just like all the AR-15 civilian sales from the mid-1960s, thirty years before the SR-25.

Nah, it doesn't add up. I don't believe a word of that NBC concocted story.
 
  • The Mauser bolt action 1898 was designed for military use.
  • The 9mm round was designed for military use.
  • The 1911 was designed for military use.
  • The .45ACP round was designed for military use.
  • The Glock pistol was designed for military use.
  • Moonclips for revolvers were designed for military use.
  • The 30.06 round was designed for military use.
So what.
 
Nah, it doesn't add up. I don't believe a word of that NBC concocted story.
Click to expand...

But everyone else will. Doesn't really matter if it's true or not. Nor does it matter if the family decided to make this statement alone or with a little help.

It only matters if you can get that story out without looking cynical or petty in light of the recent tragedies...
 
When Stoner was designing the AR series, one could order a dewat machine gun, or a Lahti 20mm AT rifle to your door. Gun mags were full of ads for Garands, FN49's...to be shipped to you at your convenience.
I doubt he would have a problem with it
The AR, in fact, is a testament to civilian firearms ownership, designed and tested by a private citizen.
 
Basic Confusion About The AR15 and the M16.

I find that people throw around the words "assault rifle" as though they know what an assault rife really means. First of all AR stands for "Armalite Rifle". The AR-15 is a "semi-automatic" rifle. Less powerful than many other semi-automatic rifles in more powerful calibers. The M-16 is a "Military" rifle that can be fired as a semi-automatic(one round down range with each pull of the trigger), Burst(three rounds down range with each pull of the trigger), and Full Auto(one round down range with each cycle as long as the trigger is held until the shooter releases the trigger, or the rifle runs out of ammo). The rifle used at the Pulse that night was a semi-automatic period. He could have chosen a .30 caliber or any number of rifles loaded with a higher caliber ammunition. In short, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that "looks like" the M-16.
The AR-15 is popular because it is designed for attachments and accessories. The owner can configure his rifle with any type of scope or open sites. It is relatively simple to clean and maintain. All of this means the owner does not have to have the gun modified by a gunsmith in order to mount a specific scope or accessory. In fact, the owner can easily change from one scope to another in just a few minutes. The gun's receiver cannot be modified to a "full auto" rifle. There are existing laws concerning the ownership of full automatic rifles( referred to as "machine guns" or "assault rifles") Look back over the history of the AR-15 and you will find that it has followed the evolution of military rifles while remaining a semi-automatic rifle.
The general public has swallowed the propaganda of the gun-control advocates and the media. I've been shooting for over 62 years. I served in the military and fired different versions of the M-16 in all three firing settings.
The "full auto" position is referred to as the "spray and pray" position. It chews up clips very quickly and hits fewer targets. The "Burst" position is the "standard" with a three round burst. Easier to stay on target and a more disciplined method. I've, also, fired the AR-15 many times in its evolution. Its familiar semi-automatic action is comfortable and a known quantity. I don't own an AR. I use a .30-06 for hunting because of the distances that I have to shoot to bring down deer and elk.
I apologize to those that know the difference between the civilian AR and the military M-16.
 
Basic Confusion About The AR15 and the M16.

Welcome to TFL, AFMISSILER!

we've covered the proper definitions many, many times, but no one seem to be listening but us, and sometimes not all of "us".

To be precise, the M16 doesn't have the burst feature. Rifles in the M16 series do (A2) but the M16 and M16A1 do not. Select fire, safe, semi and full auto in those models.

The gun's receiver cannot be modified to a "full auto" rifle.
Click to expand...
no, sorry, this is not true. ANY semi auto can be modified, by a skilled smith and the right machine tools. However, the AR lower has been changed a bit over the years to make it a more difficult operation requiring skill and machine tools.

There are existing laws concerning the ownership of full automatic rifles( referred to as "machine guns" or "assault rifles")
Click to expand...

Since 1934 full auto firearms have been heavily regulated and taxed. If it shoots full auto, it is a "machine gun" under the law. The law does not use the term "Assault Rifle". Assault rifle is a valid term, in use for many years (since the mid 1940s) but it is not the term used in the federal law.

Assault Weapon is a term used in the 1994 AWB (and in some states's laws) and refers ONLY to SEMIAUTOMATIC arms with a certain combination of stated features. As a legal term, assault weapon does NOT apply to machine guns or Assault RIFLES (which are selective fire).

The general public has swallowed the propaganda of the gun-control advocates and the media.
Click to expand...

Abso-freakin-lutely!

They DON'T know what they are talking about, and are only repeating incorrect terms and usages the way they hear them in the media. They THINK they know what those terms mean, but by the way they use them, they don't.


And the Media and gun banners have a vested interest in NOT explaining the truth.
 
The widespread response across the country has been phrases like these:
"No one is going to take your precious guns"
"No one wants to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns"
"You can keep your toys"
"Gun ownership has increased under President __________"
And so on. I believe they do want to take away guns, but it really isn't so easy.

But we keep hearing pundits and politicians say:
"Weapons of war"
"Civilians don't need those"
"Reinstate the AWB"
"Prohibit all semi autos"
"The NRA is responsible for the terrorist attacks"
"The NRA blocks our legislation "

So yes, they do want to take them, just haven't figured out how yet... They'll continue to chip away at the public opinion until they can.
They have a significant portion of the population ready to sidestep due process to get things done. So, it's just a waiting game until gun rights disappear.
 
But in the general sense, Stoner did not design any of his weapons for civilian use until the 1990s. They were all designed for the military because back then, civilian weapons didn't look like the AR.

And yes, I imagine anyone who designed a weapon that was subsequently used in crimes would be sickened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Rohrer said:
[Stoner's inventions] were all designed for the military because back then, civilian weapons didn't look like the AR.
Click to expand...
Actually, I suspect that his main impetus for designing military weaponry was that the Cold War had prompted a massive worldwide rearmament program, and Armalite wanted a piece of the pie. :)

Armalite was initially backed by Fairchild Aircraft in the 1950s; at the time, Fairchild's bread and butter was selling airplanes to the military (C-82 Packet, C-119 Flying Boxcar, and C-123 Provider transports).
 
rickyrick said:
So yes, they do want to take them, just haven't figured out how yet... They'll continue to chip away at the public opinion until they can.
They have a significant portion of the population ready to sidestep due process to get things done. So, it's just a waiting game until gun rights disappear.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Once the guns are largely gone, the government won't even need the support of public opinion to bypass other rights because there won't be any way to resist...
 
A friend of mine has been a friend of the family for many years. The stories he tells me about them do not coincide with the news story statements attributed to them. He is a member on this site. I will ask him if he would like to comment on this. He might not but I will check.
 
It appears the DHS is saying the AR with a 30 rnd stick is good personal defense choice, FOR THEMSELVES, NOT for civilians.

All for me, none for thee, classic elitist motto...

Seems typical one hand of government buy them, because they are good at what they do, and the other hand of government working to BAN them, because they are good at what they do....

and, of course, the ban only applying to people who don't work for the government...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top