Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Anorack heaven

ugly

LE
Moderator
I was about to say small as it is it looks like the C Lect chokes avaiable for the Mossberg 500 series, obviously that is self contained without inserts.
As for the earlier conundrum have a look at these 2 images and let me know what you think about the AR18 cocking handle and the bolt carrier.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/24626151/Guns/strippedAR18.jpg[/img]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/24626151/Guns/comparisom.jpg[/img]
Apologies if these are too large
 
HE117 said:
Close...

But no Cigar!

It's the AR 18, but I suspect a fairly early model..

It's the later models. The Sterling-made AR-18 had a Z-shaped cocking handle, as shown in the picture below. Sterling ceased production around 1982ish. A US company is making them now, but with the straight cocking handle shown here. Also, some other variations, I can't recall; stronger lower receiver, (not pressed steel) I think. Some details on the Armalite website. Sorry, don't put the anorak on very often these days.

HE117 said:
I am always having arguments with folk that the SA80 is nothing but a body shopped cutprice Armalite.. I thinnk this proves it!

It isn't. This was discussed before at length. The bolt and bolt carrier are certainly very similar, but they are 2 assemblies amongst a large number of components/assemblies and all the other bits are very different. You could reasonably say the bolt & carrier are similar/copies, and I wouldn't argue. The rest of the rifles bear no comparison. It would be similar to saying that Rover cars are Buick copies, since the Rover V8 engine was a Buick licensed copy.

The Armalite bolt was developed from Johnson's design, as mentioned in your pic above. Armalite would have paid Johnson royalties until his patents expired. What is that from?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
The Last Enfield by Steve Raw, Raw nerve if you ask me, he has lots of valid points and if you still dont believe the story about the conversion then look at these pictures, Enfield appropriated a Sterling AR18 and this is what they made of it:
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/24626151/Guns/enfieldseffort.jpg[/img]
They also tried a similar thing with a Stoner 63:
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/24626151/Guns/Stoner.jpg[/img]

When Sterling found out they had a joke to play on Enfield:
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/24626151/Guns/sterlingsrevenge.jpg[/img]
There is too much evidence all from Enfield and its apprentices to write it off as a rumour. johnson didnt invent the rotating bolt, ross did, Johnson applied it to semi automatic arms.
I can add more but what I find distracting is the missing link between the L9 or EM2 as its more popularly known and the SA80. There is too little evidence of any design thread beyond the bullpup configuration.

The rest of the rifles bear no comparison. It would be similar to saying that Rover cars are Buick copies, since the Rover V8 engine was a Buick licensed copy.

This is true to the extent that all cars with boot mouted engines are not Vws but they used the carrier to prove it could be done. They then modified it only enough to make it look different. That was only driven by engineering changes forced on it by changes to the user spec during its stuttered development. HE117 is correct, You are correct, I am correct but it still is the guts of an AR18.
 
ugly said:
The Last Enfield by Steve Raw, Raw nerve if you ask me, he has lots of valid points and if you still dont believe the story about the conversion then look at these pictures, Enfield appropriated a Sterling AR18 and this is what they made of it:

I know about that. I think it's a valid design process to use existing products as a test-bed for 'innovative' new products. Sterlings were 30-odd miles away and can't have been surprised that their products were acting as donors for 5.56mm prototypes at Enfield.

Besides the bolt & carrier, does Mr. Raw say any othr parts were copied? I haven't seen the book. The piston & cylinder are sometimes quoted as evidence of copying, but the Armalite system had apparently ben copied from Tokarev.


ugly said:
They also tried a similar thing with a Stoner 63:

And probably any other 5.56 that they could get, probably a few AKs as well. So why is it claimed to be an AR-18 copy and not a Stoner 63 copy?

ugly said:
johnson didnt invent the rotating bolt, ross did, Johnson applied it to semi automatic arms.

I think John Browning was first to market with a civvy self-loader, the Remington Model 21. No surprises there, he seems to have invented most auto-shooty things. It had a rotating bolt with 2 lugs locking to the receiver. Johnson developed the idea into the bolt with multiple lugs locking to a barrel extension, so making a costly load-bearing receiver unnecessary. I think the Armalite & Enfield bolts were derived from Johnson's work.


ugly said:
I can add more but what I find distracting is the missing link between the L9 or EM2 as its more popularly known and the SA80. There is too little evidence of any design thread beyond the bullpup configuration.

There wasn't a link. The EM2 had a machined load-bearing receiver. The lightweight receiver & bolt locking to a barrel extension had obvious cost saving advantages which was why they were adopted for the Armalites (10 & 15 castings, 16 & 18 pressed steel) and EWS.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
There wasn't a link. The EM2 had a machined load-bearing receiver. The lightweight receiver & bolt locking to a barrel extension had obvious cost saving advantages which was why they were adopted for the Armalites (10 & 15 castings, 16 & 18 pressed steel) and EWS.
_________________
This is the point they had nothing engineering wise to start the design with. Everyone was admittedly getting into stampings by then. There is no link therefore the design is using an AR18 carrier. It was only modded because of development work. Yes this is normal but it also proves, and the photos dont have the stoner guts to disprove it, that it is true to assert that it is an AR18 operating system. I dont see why people are arguing, its in black and white from the Enfield apprentice association and revenge was spoofed see the pic from Jan Stevenson.
That said I do not see it as a dispariging remark in any way. The AR18 system works and tolerance wise is a lot better than anything produced at the time by Enfield to compete with it. Enfields MD took a tour of Sterlings Dagenham plant officially to see if they were capable of taking on sub assembly sub contracts. It was really to see what machines were in use, no work ever went to Sterling.
What should have happened is that the EM2/L9 should have been rebuilt to accomodate the 5.56. We only got the weapon that the ordnance board specified to a unit cost that would make seeling Enfield with ongoing contracts a viable proposition.
It is and always will be the internals from an AR18. As before that is no crime and you agree that it isnt. Just normal development. No one ever said when I was issued it that this is a new weapon. I had seen some of the IW 4.85mm trials on tv and on the range. No one ever told me when it was issued that this is a bullpupped AR18. It clearly isnt. It was pointed out almost instantly when issue dby the spotters in COP that it was remarkably like the internals from an AR18. I had no comment then and still have none. They were right. Enfield not only used the AR18 to make a bullpup work but then used low level industrial espionage to find out which machines were the most cost effective for making it!
Again I have no problem with any of this. I can accept matter as a fact!
 
Are there any other similarities/component copies, besides the bolt, carrier and piston?


I don't think the Sterling bullpup was conceived as a joke.

It was displayed on their stand at arms fairs and I think (not certain) it was pictured in their sales brochures. If it was a joke, it would have been a bit subtle for the foreign buyers who they were pitching their sales patter at.

It wasn't a secret that it was a non-working model (I asked) but bull-pup was the flavour of the month then. There might have been other less-obviously bodged versions of it. I think it was an effort to attract interest and, if any interest had been shown in it, they'd have produced a working prototype.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
As the caption said it would only take a linkage. The SA80 is still the guts from an AR18 stuffed into some pressed spam cans. That has always been the comment. Sterling wouldnt have allowed such shoite out of the factory bearing their name as the p1ss poor stuff held together with araldite and black nasty that Enfield issued out. The claim stands as before it is the guts of the AR18. No one has to my recollection ever claimed it was a complete copy. Get of yer horse me old mucker the statement stands.
I can prove araldite and black nasty and have the photos!
 
Onetap said:
Are there any other similarities/component copies, besides the bolt, carrier and piston?


ugly said:
As the caption said it would only take a linkage. The SA80 is still the guts from an AR18 stuffed into some pressed spam cans. That has always been the comment. Sterling wouldnt have allowed such shoite out of the factory bearing their name as the p1ss poor stuff held together with araldite and black nasty that Enfield issued out. The claim stands as before it is the guts of the AR18.

That's a 'NO' then.

ugly said:
No one has to my recollection ever claimed it was a complete copy. Get of yer horse me old mucker the statement stands.

Lots of people do, usually those who know least about it but the claim doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The fact is that most of the components and sub-assemblies bear no similarity.

There would be nothing wrong in copying ideas or parts on which any relevant patents had expired. It happens all the time.

The acid test would be for Armalite to argue their case before a court, as Sterlings had done with the SMG. Sterlings won. Armalite chose not to do so; they had no case.
 
Onetap said:
Onetap said:
Are there any other similarities/component copies, besides the bolt, carrier and piston?


ugly said:
As the caption said it would only take a linkage. The SA80 is still the guts from an AR18 stuffed into some pressed spam cans. That has always been the comment. Sterling wouldnt have allowed such shoite out of the factory bearing their name as the p1ss poor stuff held together with araldite and black nasty that Enfield issued out. The claim stands as before it is the guts of the AR18.

That's a 'NO' then.

ugly said:
No one has to my recollection ever claimed it was a complete copy. Get of yer horse me old mucker the statement stands.

Lots of people do, usually those who know least about it but the claim doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The fact is that most of the components and sub-assemblies bear no similarity.

There would be nothing wrong in copying ideas or parts on which any relevant patents had expired. It happens all the time.

The acid test would be for Armalite to argue their case before a court, as Sterlings had done with the SMG. Sterlings won. Armalite chose not to do so; they had no case.

So are we in agreement that the principal working parts are a copy of the AR18 then? Clearly the receiver and furniture are different. The phrase "an AR18 rammed up the arrse of an EM2" was coined at the time.
I think the "acid test" would really be to strip both and see if the bits off one would go into the other. I bet the locking lug dimensions are close.
 

HE117

LE
Onetap,

Dunno who is scre*in who here, but frankly the whole deal stinks IMHO!

There is no doubt that the XL64 is to all intents and purposes a "cut & shunt" AR18. Any two year old would take some convincing that this was not the case!

Geesus when you look at the lawsuit Greener pulled on the War Office over the Minie bullet, this is nowhere close..!

So WHY was there no licencing deal or lawsuit???

The majority of the bad habits of the SA 80 - need for "forward assist" for example (WTF...!) - are inherited directly from the Armalite. So WHY did we go ahead with the conversion? The AR 18 was developed as a "cheap export variant" of the M16, so why did we in the UK START with a 3rd world design as our initial concept? That the program has cost an absolute fortune to do and then put right is, I suppose, all down to good old UK engineering management!!

As nifty an example of "poodle faking" as I have ever seen...

Stop defending the indefensible.

(Or were you on the management team?)
 

whisky

Crow


What sort of sight is that on the No. 9? I've also seen it on prototype
versions of the SLR from the mid-1950s. As here: SLR pic 1 or here: SLR pic 2

Does anyone have any info on it? What sort of reticule did it have (I
assume it is an optical sight and not some weird "tunnel" thing)?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
It was known as the Unit power optic sight ranged out from 100 to 900 yds but no recollection of the magnification, I hve some good pictures available.
 

HE117

LE
I shot one of these in the seventies at Shriv...

The sight did not actually magnify, all it did was to bring the target and the sight reticle into the same optical plane, a bit like the red dot pistol sights.

I is was better than an iron sight, and easier to use as I recall. Also it was very small....
 
HE117 said:
I shot one of these in the seventies at Shriv...

The sight did not actually magnify, all it did was to bring the target and the sight reticle into the same optical plane, a bit like the red dot pistol sights.

I is was better than an iron sight, and easier to use as I recall. Also it was very small....

The term "unit power" indicates that it was "unitary magnification" i.e. x1

When are you off He117? (OPSEC etc)
 

HE117

LE
Hi Stab...

Soon!

Check your PMs...
 

gennithmedic

War Hero
To carry this discussion along I would like to introduce the H and K G36. Nothing new, no surprises, just a well engineered article which has rescued the company, after the "cylinderless round" disappointment.
And is selling like hot cakes...
 

HE117

LE
Ok - you got me interested...

link perhaps...?
 

whisky

Crow
HE117 said:
I shot one of these in the seventies at Shriv...

The sight did not actually magnify, all it did was to bring the target and the sight reticle into the same optical plane, a bit like the red dot pistol sights.

I is was better than an iron sight, and easier to use as I recall. Also it was very small....


What sight reticule did it use? Was it a dot? A post-reticule?

Ugly: Any chance of posting some of the detailed pics here?
 

New Posts

Top