Kodiac's M96K Entry Gun

G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
The M96Kodiac Entry Gun:
M96K%20Entry%20Gun.jpg

I was studying the M96 Expeditionary Rifle and decided I wanted to see one that was much shorter. So I made one shorter. Taking a "Paintbrush" hacksaw to the rifle I created the M96K Entry Gun. With this configuration there is no need of the mighty morphin M-4 that all the AR-15 nuts keep talking about. I think this configuration would give the gun a very nice balance with fast handling. Being of course an evil SBR this version would be not available to the general public without the special liscenses and taxes. Since it is a class III weapon now, why not go all the way and make it select fire as well? There you go. Now, lets replace all the M-16s and M-4s in the current US Military inventory.
 
Sounds like a good idea to me. Only problem we might have is that I've "heard" the M-96 does not take well to full auto, something about it's cyclic rate being pretty unstable once converted. Anyone know anything about this?
 
There was a short carbine barrel available for the original Stoner 63. The only thing that could keep a user from going any shorter on the Stoner 63 or M96 is the length of the gas piston. Shortening the gas piston would require some R&D time and expense.

However, for general civilian ownership under current US laws, you will be limited to a SBR (short barreled rifle) conversion. A select fire conversion would run afoul of the McClure-Volkmer provision which cut off civilian transfers of full-auto weapons manufactured in the US after May (?) 1986. (GCA '68 cut off civilian transfers of foreign-manufactured full-auto weapons imported after 1968.) The folding stock would run afoul of current BATF interpretations that a SBR can still be held to the legal limits of the 'semi-auto assault rifle' ban despite its NFA status.
 
I have to agree with mussi, the sig commando 552 is sweet. Of course the availablity is a small problem.
 
Man - that has to be the fugliest folding stock I have ever seen.
ZM Weapons? Nasty!
No - I'll stay away from folders... just the short barrel please. The gas system would have to be redone - but that is only problematic. As is getting it to go full auto. You can't "Convert" it to select fire, as it would require new parts altogether made my the factory and the gun from the factory would have to be class 3 from the start. Again - problematic. It can be done...
"We can build it, we have the technology, we can make it better."

(Okay - Blatant 6 Million Dollar Man line)
 
Total Perfection could be achieved by taking this M96K and rechambering it for .300 Whisper and attaching a detachable suppressor to it. Perfect rifle for clandestine CQB work where hushed 9MM just isnt enough.
 
not only does the ZM stock fold, it telescopes too

i thought a foreward grip would be nice too

gota get an aimpoint on there too

dZ
 
Hmmm - so my version isnt that original at all is it?

Wait a second - lets look at the differences...
My versions gas system is a lot shorter, and the handguards are also shorter by almost 1/2.
I removed the pin tabs on the top of the reciever as there is only one set left after the shortening and you need two sets for a solid mount.

This one is very cool - but I like mine better as I am not a huge fan of "Tactical Attachments". If I want to play with snap togethers - I'll play with Legos. I wouldnt want a verticle for grip, light, full length rail, or any of that extra stuff. An Aimpoint would be the most I do - and if I wanted that - I could have a short rail silver soldered to the reciever. One just big enough to mount the sight right where I want it. However keeping just the iron sights lets me keep the weight as low as possible.
 
This rifle sure does look good small.
M96C%20Entry%20Gun.jpg

I'm calling this one the M96C.

Then I thought - you know... Some TFLers just have to have Optics. Here you go:
M96K%20SOPMOD.jpg

I'm calling that version the M96K SOPMOD. This variant allows the attachments of whatever you want - Lights, Grips, Flare Launchers, or Bi-Pods as shown.
 
George: I didn't mean that the proposed carbines couldn't work with shorter pistons. Instead, it may simply take more time, money, and effort to find the right combination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top