Thread 64143373

Alternate history hypothetical: Stoner began working on the AR-10 a few years earlier than in our timeline and submitted a more finalized version for Army testing. No stupid composite barrel exploding in testing. In 1957 the AR-10 is adopted as the military service rifle.
>Assuming it is similar to the Portuguese or other military contract rifles in our timeline, with no Ordnance Department fuckery, how to AR-10s fair in a jungle environment? Both in reliablity and tactical usefulness?
>How do soldiers perceive the AR-10?
>Does it perform well enough to stunt the US interest in adopting a smaller intermediate round closer to 5.56mm?
>If Eugene Stoner continued working on early AR-15s in .222 Remington, do they get interest enough to survive into a widespread platform?
>If the AR-10 remains in service through Vietnam, how long foes it last after? How does this affect the procurement of weapons by other western nations? (Without the US pushing 5.56mm does the UK or Australia have any really motivation to change from FALs?)

>>64143373 (OP)
i dont know ask chat gpt.

>>64143392
I apologize for not making a thread about Ukraine, Sig drama, or e-celebs.

He wins the war

AR10 gets canned and replaced by the Mini-14/AC556

History doesn't change a whole lot. As I understand it, the army was developing M193 independent of the AR. The AR-10 was scaled down to chamber the army's round, after all.

>>64143404
Or if the AR10 is a smashing success, would they not adjust M193 to 7.62x51mm? I have a hunch we'd get an M80A1-esque round by the 1980s in this timeline, which might have interesting implications for personal armor development.

>>64143415
>would they not adjust M193 to 7.62x51mm?
They wouldn't because the idea behind the M193 was a smaller, lighter round that soldiers can carry more of and fire more easily.

>>64143373 (OP)
The M16 was as much of a sidegrade to the M14 as it was an upgrade to the M1/M2 carbine or even the grease gun. Even adopting the AR10 and somehow bucking the Garand's built-in legacy, we would still be moving towards a universal infantry caliber like 5.56

>>64143373 (OP)
They'll still adopt the M14 cause the Ordnance Department are fucktarded.

>>64143423
>smaller, lighter round that soldiers can carry more of and fire more easily
Well that didn't age very well.

>>64143373 (OP)
>How do AR-10s do in the jungle?
Probably pretty well. They seal gunk out for the most part and the heavier caliber can penetrate foliage better, but ammunition would still have been relatively heavy.
>How would soldiers perceive it?
Well, you assume they would do the M16 corner cutting or at the very least having been adopted before American involvement in Vietnam they would have had time to sort it out.

Given that, there would still be some apprehension due to the lightweight materials. Soldiers would perceive it as a fragile weapon, even if it isn't true. They wouldn't have had as much against it without reliability issues or the additional perceived inadequacy of 5.56mm in the mix.
>Interest in 222/223/5.56
There would still be the need for a lighter weight carbine and it wouldn't really be practical without a lighter cartridge. I suspect that an AR-15 would have eventually entered service alongside the AR-10. A carbine AR-10 could work somewhat, but with the weight, noise and recoil of 7.62x51 it would be a half-ass solution.
>AR-10 after Vietnam
It would probably be revised and updated more into a DMR role, just as the M14 did. I'm not sure if it would remain as a rifle.

>>64143453
>A carbine AR-10 could work somewhat, but with the weight, noise and recoil of 7.62x51 it would be a half-ass solution.
Wonder if they would try a "consolidated rifle" by merging the AR-15 / AR-10 into an "AR-12" program like what was attempted with .264 USA / LICC. Split the middle.

>>64143443
>something is in trials
Get back when a purchase and adoption is made.

>>64143469
You will use the death-by-committee jack-of-all-trades rifle and you will not penetrate Level IV armor as originally intended before the committee got to it.

>>64143453
I think if the AR10 is the service rifle at the end of Vietnam it stays the service rifle through at least the 80s. The M14 got retired from being the service rifle quick which is part of why it slipped into just being a DMR. If the AR10 is the rifle at the end of the war it means a huge stockpile of ammo, mags, and doctrine built around it. Maybe we see a post-Vietnam A2 version, but I think the simple inertia of already being the standard carries it. I think you see interest for 5.56mm from people wanting/needing shorter rifles like vehicle crews and maybe interest from special operations. Line soldiers in the 80s were still worrying about the Soviet Union and fighting in Europe (realistic or not, I think it was certainly in mind). I think we see US troops in Panama with AR10s.

>>64143373 (OP)
I've hypothesized about this a lot actually. Particularly in the changes that would have happened to the AR10 over the course of mass production and combat testing. To be fair the AR15 basically was unchanged from the 601 to the M16A1. Yes I am intimately aware of the small changes but the fundamental operating system of the rifle and the core dimensions of the components are identical.

>how [do] AR-10s fair in a jungle environment? Both in reliablity and tactical usefulness?
Probably the same in all honesty, as long as the bore and chamber are chrome lined and the internal three bore is chromed, issued with cleaning kits, etc. There's nothing less reliable about it besides AR10s are way more prone to feeding issues when they get particularly dirty and they genuinely do need forward assists.

>How do soldiers perceive the AR-10?
This is a hard one because really it's not much better than an M14. If you shorted the M14 down to 18" or so and put a moderator on the end of the muzzle I feel like that weapon would have been well liked by the troops. Nevertheless I think the AR10 would have been far easier to fire full auto in counter ambushes, and the 7.62 cartridge undeniably punches through concealment and foliage significantly better.
>Does it perform well enough to stunt the US interest in adopting a smaller intermediate round closer to 5.56mm?
Probably not. You would see development push in that direction eventually, either for ARVN or for Irregulars. There is basically no way you could shorten the AR10 down to XM177 lengths and work reliably or for very long.
>early AR-15s in .222 Remington, do they get interest enough to survive into a widespread platform?
Yes definitely, the research was already underway in 1959 into small bore assault rifles, it would have happened eventually, see above. There were other firms trying to invent small bore high capacity rifles but stoner was able to push his downsized ar10 out within a matter of months

>>64143396
I'm glad you apologized.

>>64143506
>If the AR-10 remains in service through Vietnam, how long does it last after? How does this affect the procurement of weapons by other western nations? (Without the US pushing 5.56mm does the UK or Australia have any really motivation to change from FALs?)
Easily into the 80s or 90s. The platform would have undergone cost saving and practical improvements ala M16A2 and the kinks would have been worked out where everyone was happy with it, if a small bore rifle didn't catch the pentagon's attention. Which I doubt it would have even if some other western country adopted one, because the "big bullet good" stereotype that was broken by vietnam would have never been broken, and the troops, brass and american public would have never had their faith in 7.62 shaken. We'd probably still be using it today.

They all get on the plane

>>64143505
I can see that. Main rifle remains an AR-10, AR-15 cones in specifically as a carbine so it starts as a CAR-15 from beginning and stays in that role alongside the AR-10 rather than having a 20" rifle and an 11.5-14.5" carbine in the same light caliber.

Had a thought, if the AR-10 is earlier to the mark does that mean he's quicker with the AR-16? If so does that mean it has to get a chance to get adopted by other nations before they adopt the FAL?

>>64143469
The trials ended years ago. The M7 and M250 are in active service right now.

>>64143373 (OP)
I don’t think much would happen. When Armalite was showing off the rifles people didn’t like the AR-10, but they loved the AR-15.

Now what would be really interesting is if instead of entering WW1 with stupid bolt action rifles we entered WW1 with awesome 30-30 Winchesters. Officers could be armed with 45colt carbines too. Now those would have been awesome for clearing trenches, bolt action guns sucked at clearing trenches so much that soldiers chose literal improvised clubs to raid trenches with over their rifles.

>>64143469
>Get back when a purchase and adoption is made.
OK

>>64143543
That was an awesome movie

>>64143373 (OP)
needs the ability to feed from a stripperclip

>>64143506
Generally agree anon. Yes the handling (on full auto fire) and basic portability would have been better.
I tend to think that both rifles (AR-10 and -15) could have been adopted in tandem and co-existed.

>>64143540
Also this.
Most of these hypotheses (OP) come down to having 7.62 as the primary rifle cartridge or not.

Can you imagine a world without 5.56mm?

>>64143373 (OP)
The large frame AR has reliability and durability issues. They don't run worth a damn but people on the internet hype them up because it's too expensive to actually put significant rounds through them. Half of the reliability we attribute to the sealed system is also due to the SCHV cartridge. It really is just a perfect package.

>>64144386
Honestly sounds hellish. Wed at least have 30 carbine but the commies would've had a leg up on us perpetually with 7.62 Soviet. Combat reports showed a lack of ammo in the M14 vs the AK.

>>64144428
>7.62 Soviet
arfcom boomer nomenclature

>milspec AR-10

We are in the wrong timeline

>>64143373 (OP)
>>Assuming it is similar to the Portuguese or other military contract rifles in our timeline, with no Ordnance Department fuckery, how to AR-10s fair in a jungle environment? Both in reliablity and tactical usefulness?
Reliability? Breddy gud but still not as rugged as an AK. Tactically? Still outgunned by AKs, RPDs and RPKs but a cut above the SKS, Mosin, SVT, etc.

>>How do soldiers perceive the AR-10?
Positively. Lighter than a Garand, handles better and reloads faster than a Garand, more rounds on tap than a Garand.

>>Does it perform well enough to stunt the US interest in adopting a smaller intermediate round closer to 5.56mm?
MAYBE during 'nam but certainly not after.

>>If Eugene Stoner continued working on early AR-15s in .222 Remington, do they get interest enough to survive into a widespread platform?
Yes, but if the Army is still shitter-shattered over muh M14 losing then they'd probably dig their heels in a bit.

>>If the AR-10 remains in service through Vietnam, how long foes it last after?
It gets replaced almost immediately by the Stoner 63. "Muh full-power cartridge, muh Fulda Gap" doesn't really hold up when you've been getting ambushed by AKs and RPDs and the difference in the weight of the ammo and full-auto control asserts itself. The teething problems of the Stoner 63 were pretty much wrapped up by the end of 'nam and it would have been a fantastic system.

>How does this affect the procurement of weapons by other western nations? (Without the US pushing 5.56mm does the UK or Australia have any really motivation to change from FALs?)
I think that the AR-10 would have done a decent export business to countries in the market for a new rifle but wouldn't have dislodged the FAL or G3. At least until the US adopted 5.56, that is, and I think that would have happened shortly after 'nam at the latest.

Honestly, aside from how niche it would've been, why hasn't anyone made an A1 style AR-10?

>>64144436
That's cool man. Love sharing something with the older generation that raised me. Feels good to be a middle aged white dude.

>>64143373 (OP)
Not much, the AR-10 will just become the DMR while the AR-15 becomes the standard issue. Might get less intentional fuck ups but all in all the timeline stays stable

>>64143443
Honestly I don't think that rifle is going to be admitted as is. They will absolutely downsize the bullet to something in between a 556 and a 308. And the suppressors will either be dropped too, or grunts will remove them themselves.

>>64144493
They're already churning out a hundred million+ rounds of 6.8 ammo per year. That ship has long since sailed.

>>64143373 (OP)
>no Ordnance Department fuckery
C'mon OP, you had me up to this point.
What's next, sun rises in the west?

>>64144473
People have done A1 style LR308 builds with duckbill handguards/A1 stocks/A1 grips but all the ones I have seen have the detachable carry handles because nobody made a stretched A1 style carry handle upper for the LR308 pattern that I have seen.

Only other option I've seen is the BRN-10 which is more like a throwback to the original AR-10, but forwards compatible with LR308 parts.

>>64144473
Armalite did a long time ago. It wasn't a perfect autistic replica or anything but it was still pretty neat.

>>64144503
NTA. They can’t stop and re-tool for a smaller cartridge? After all, The buyer is the US ARMY with its infinite budget. And what if the army realized it blundered with its adoption of a full power cartridge? They can’t course-correct just cause sig has tooling set up?

>>64144386
What about a world where a .280 or equivalent round was adopted instead of the 7.62?

>>64144749
That’s not a world I want to live in

Ignoring the fact that some groups in the US military were working on .22 cal cartridges for lightweight combat rifles, I think we'd see more development of the M2 carbine or other .30 carbine weapons for special forces, vehicle crews, paratroopers, MPs etc. Imagine an CAR-15 scaled down to .30 Carbine or an M2 with a M3 grease gun style wire stock. I still think something like .223/5.56 would become mainstream even without US military support maybe 20 years later due to foreign development.

>>64144624
Props for them doing a tribute/reissue but there's nothing desireable about that at all, imho

>>64144806
you like the world where a glorified shortened .30-06 was forced onto everyone in nato?

>>64144938
Yes. The transformation from 308 to 280 (ostensibly an “intermediate” cartridge) is the wrong kind. Squashing a cartridge vertically comes at immense cost for no real benefit, namely, cartridge mass and recoil. The (sort of) isometric scaling of 30-06 down to 5.56 is superior. There’s a reason the entire world switched to isometrically shrunk intermediates after the trial and error of short and fat “gen 1 intermediates” like 8mm Kurz and 7.62x39.

>glorified shortened 30-06
What? Every cartridge is a glorified shortened/lengthened 30-06. Like, topologically they’re all the same. What do you even mean by this? How is this a criticism of 5.56?

>>64145029
>What? Every cartridge is a glorified shortened/lengthened 30-06. Like, topologically they’re all the same.
Can you elaborate?

>>64144719
Don't worry about it. Just harvest the brass and load it for .308. The only positive of the new rifle is the cartridge design.

>>64145029
i was talking about the adoption of 7.62 nato

>>64145037
Well played

>>64145085
> The only positive of the new rifle is the cartridge design.

I agree. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right size. There’s nothing wrong with 6.8x51 IF you for whatever reason need a 3000ft*lb short action cartridge. it’s an excellent successor to 308. But an extremely energetic short action does not make for a good infantry cartridge. What if I want 80kpsi 5.56 or whatever? But that’s all besides the point cause I’m wondering what the army will do. Are they SERIOUSLY switching to 6.8? Like 20 years from now they’re all still gonna be using the M7? We are unceremoniously abandoning assault rifles and intermediate cartridges? For real?

>>64145087
Ooohhhhh ok. Well in that case, idk maybe the 280 British (assuming this is what you mean) is a bit more desireable.

I thought you were referring to 5.56 as a shortened 30-06 because I’ve heard it referred to in this way before - that it’s a scaled down version of 30-06.

>>64143443
5,56 has been used for 60 years, and will be used for 60 more after this piece of shit is forgotten.

>>64147263
(idk about 5.56 but) Everyone has already forgotten about that piece of shit.

>>64149344
How unfortunate. M7 hate threads were my favorite.

>>64149479
It's so bad that people can't even muster up hate anymore
pity, perhaps

>>64143415
Army started SCHV project in '57

>>64143691
>$4,300
That includes the dogshit optic, right?

>>64144624
>a2 sights
Disgusting

>>64150208
hahahahaha

>>64143480
>will not penetrate Level IV
the hunk of shit doesnt do that?
whats the point?

>>64150208
LOL, LMAO, KEK, ROFL.

The optic costs like 12 grand.

>>64144624
fun fact these are the same handguards that brownells used for their BRN-Proto, same factory that makes the rest of their brown furniture, if they're even made still

>>64144386
>>64144428
Somewhere there is a world where Korobov won Stalins political favor. A different world, a world where no one knows if body armor actually works because they have been receiving suppressing fire for they last 50 years and are afraid to stick their heads up.... A better world

>>64150208
lol no
Those were about 14k each at the start, down to around 12k now

>>64143543
>>64143990
this

>>64145698
>280 British
the Artillerie Inrichtingen AR-10 chambered in this (or something better/similar) would have revolutionized modern small arms

>>64143469
I miss it so much bros

>>64144749

see >>64158658

>>64143453
>>64143427
>>64143506
>AR-10 hypothetically adopted for Vietnam
does MACV-SOG adopt it?

what's the SBR in OP pic

>>64143691
>>64154207
Holy shit.

>>64143691
>>64154207
>>64163086
amazing scam

>>64143373 (OP)
>Assuming it is similar to the Portuguese or other military contract rifles in our timeline, with no Ordnance Department fuckery, how to AR-10s fair in a jungle environment? Both in reliablity and tactical usefulness?
Probably comparably to the M16. The Army will insist on adding a forward assist eventually, and most likely it will be a similar plunger to what we finally got, because Stoner did not want to commit to one and made a shit one, and testing found the plunger to work the best.

>How do soldiers perceive the AR-10?
They would probably like it more than the M14 just because of its lighter handling and easier recoil.

>Does it perform well enough to stunt the US interest in adopting a smaller intermediate round closer to 5.56mm?
For a time, probably, because part of why the M16 got its foot in the door is because the M14 was REALLY languishing in production, so assuming the AR10 could get in as quick production as the M16, it would end up satisfying the gap left by struggling M14 production.

However, a SCHV intermediate cartridge is pretty much inevitable because it turned out to be perfection. Likely it would lead to one in a scaled down AR10 one way or another, so we would probably get something similar to the 5.56mm M16, if just somewhat later.

>If Eugene Stoner continued working on early AR-15s in .222 Remington, do they get interest enough to survive into a widespread platform?
Probably. People say the M16 did badly at first, but field testing of AR15s before that during Project AGILE went SO fucking well, the grunts in that test loved the light weight, good precision, and the wounding that was almost as good as 7.62mm NATO.

>If the AR-10 remains in service through Vietnam, how long foes it last after?
It would probably go the M14 route, ergo still kinda around a bit.

>>64143404
The Army was resistant to SCHV, they were really into 7.62mm NATO and had to be pulled by the ear by Curtis LeMay and the DOD due to the M14's failure.

>>64143443
Right, but how would they have known? You're not working with the information that they were, nor considering the circumstances of the times.

>>64143427
The M16 was a categorical upgrade to the M14, M1 Carbine, M2 Carbine, and the Greasegun.

>>64143443
Yeah, the XM7 has not aged well.

>>64143654
And everyone is complaining that it's a complete hunk of shit.

>>64144386
>>64144749
>>64144938
.280 British was a shit cartridge, and the EM2 was a shit rifle. 7.62mm NATO as an infantry rifle cartridge was a mistake, but 5.56mm NATO as an infantry rifle cartridge is perfection.

>>64144468
>reloads faster than a Garand
With practice, you can reload an M1 a bit faster than you swap a magazine on a rifle with a proper LRBHO like the AR10 and M16, though that's of course rendered moot by 20 and 30 round magazines.

>>64145692
>it’s an excellent successor to 308
it's not appreciably better than M80A1 Ball.

>>64165585
What if, 20 or 30 round en bloc clips?

>>64165628
I don't think it'd work easily, part of the M1's fast reload is that the en-bloc is short and can be easily handled and oriented with your one hand, also being able to load it 'upside down'.
The other part is that the action locks open and spits the empty clip out for you, so you don't need to manually remove it, just slam the new clip in and let the bolt home.

H&K's prototype HK36 rifle (not to be confused with the much later, and decidedly more sane and conventional G36), was a roller-delayed assault rifle with a LRBHO.
It had this pretty wild idea where the magazine was fixed to the rifle and it would be loaded with 25rd plastic packets/clips, also using a proprietary 4.6x33mm rifle cartridge with a bizarre 'spoontipped' projectile.
The HK36, if it had been designed for the 5.56mm instead (which was much better at penetrating armor, part of the 4.6x33mm's demise), and if the cyclic rate had been halved to a more sane 600rpm (yes, the HK36 honest to god had a 1200rpm cyclic rate), could maybe have been a more appealing prospect, along with adding proper irons.

The HK36 did not spit the plastic clip out for you when the bolt locked open, I think, though it might have been designed to plop out an empty clip once you opened the magazine door. Not sure, there's VERY little information on it (it's entirely possible that there was only ever one single prototype which was gradually iterated on).

tl;dr it's an idea which has at least been played with, though it's very unclear how well this actually worked.

>>64165739
I wonder how they compress the magazine spring

>>64165739
>decidedly more sane and conventional G36
>'decidedly'
?
how is the 1990 G36 "more sane and conventional" (let alone 'decidedly' whatever thta is supposed to mean)? This G36 was roller locked delayed action and its innovation was the ammunition package-loading; these were replaced with a conventional removable HK 33-style box magazine in later prototypes of the rifle. The 4.6mm cartridge was, in its dimension, similar to other late 60s/early 1970s NATOsphere projects such as the U.K. 4.85×49mm and U.S. Army Serial Bullet Rifle (SBR) 4.32×45mm; some of these experimental project rifles were conceived with a 3 round burst-fire use (i.e. firing a few rounds rapidly for minimal recoil impulse, this 'salvo' theory also was fundamental to the HK 11) and the small-caliber round to reduce ammo weight along with bulk/size/weight of the rifle's mechanism.
4.6×33mm HK had a long spoon-tip bullet with lead core antipersonnel and tungsten carbide core AP loads.

>>64165739
>>64165891
>4.6×33mm
*Correction: 4.6×36mm

>>64165891
>how is the 1990 G36 "more sane and conventional"
Normal ball ammo, normal detachable magazines, normal cyclic rates, actual irons.

>these were replaced with a conventional removable HK 33-style box magazine in later prototypes of the rifle
I always assumed it was the other way around, that detachable mags were used first, but then they went for the screwball setup. It's also speculated that there never existed more than one of the HK36 prototypes, there could have been multiple rifles, but there's just no evidence of that.

>firing a few rounds rapidly for minimal recoil impulse
Hyperburst, yes. I don't think that 1200rpm is actually enough for that. There's a reason the G11 had the insane amount of engineering put into it like it did, they realized that the only possible way to utilize hyperburst was if the cyclic rate was so high that each bullet had already left the bore before the recoil impulse hit the shooter. This had its own problem, as that actually means you have three times the felt recoil when firing in such a mode.

blessed timeline we have the AR10 chambered in 7x43 mm NATO
blursed timeline we get an Beretta bm 59 chambered in .280 ackley improved

>>64165933
>another walloftext
The ammo isn't applicable as explained in my post (You) replied to, and rest of what you listed (mags/cyclic/rates/irons) = Wrong because HK 36 had each of those.
The 1990 G36 was the most *un*-conventional military rifle yet built after the AUG.
Nothing about your first post # 64165739 made any sense at all, like a plebbit blog. Go back and stay there

I own all the original 1970s paper/book publications (Jane's/'Military Small Arms' by Hogg, Weeks, factory literature) pertaining to this HK product, sitting on my bookshelf.
https://weaponsman.com/hks-other-4-6-the-hk36-in-4-6-x-36/

>>64165985
Setting aside the ammo, how the fuck is its clip loading system not unconventional? How is a complete lack of irons with only a reflex sight not unconventional, particularly for its time? How is the blistering high cyclic rate, again, for an infantry rifle, not really unconventional?

I'm aware of stuff like what the Brits were working on at the time, but aside from being a similarly small caliber (4.7mm), they did not use any oddball projectiles, they only used conventional detachable magazines, and they had irons.

>The 1990 G36 was the most *un*-conventional military rifle yet built after the AUG.
It's a 5.56mm rifle with a rotating bolt and piston, the only remotely unconventional aspect was its plastic body, even the AUG itself had integrated optics before (and sort of the EM2, though it wasn't magnified), and AUG also used a lot of plastic.
I can think of plenty much weirder rifles than the G36, such as the G11 or Steyr ACR, or Korobov's various prototypes.

Finally, fuck you too, I hope your mom falls victim to a Panjeet making an illegal u-turn on the freeway.

>>64165946
In the truly superior timeline we get 6.5 Jap Rimless as the NATO standard. And small arms development grinds to a halt because there's nowhere else to go.

>>64166512
Back to plebbit, Brainlet.

You know maybe the chinese got it right with 5.8×42mm

>>64166530
>6.5 Jap Rimless as the NATO standard
why not 6.5 Swede?

>>64168473
Too big. It's just a full power cartridge, might as well stick with .308.

>>64168554
I think you want something akin to 6.5mm Grendel.

>>64168866
Nope I want 6.5 Nip but without the semi-rim, proofed for modern pressures.

>>64168554
No, it's better performing than .308 and has lower recoil.