Thinking about a rifle purchase

zackmars

Well-Known
Nov 4, 2015
1,581
113
Texas
I though about posting this long, detailed description of what all that parts were and what they did, but honestly I feel that would just be a waste of my time and yours. I'll keep it simple. The purpose of WWSD is to build the AR in a way that is true to Stoner's vision of it. It's not just a lightweight gun, though that is a major feature of it. It's above all, a practical one. As practical as possible. Each part was tested against others, and then chosen for the build. Every ounce on the gun is justified, and anything that is not practical is left off. The gun is not just a mass of parts, it's a culmination of those parts working towards a specific set of goals.

If you are truly interested in what it is and what it's purpose is, here is the InRange playlist for the WWSD builds. The first 15 videos are for the 2017 build. The rest are for the ongoing 2020 build.

I am aware of what they were going for, needless to say it is a flawed premise, a quick browse through the AR15's history will show you several flaws in the design that came about after the design started gaining traction.

You cannot say "stoner would do this if he were alive" when all you have is a collection of parts that would not exist without the story of the AR15 happening as it did, warts and all


Eugene stoner was an engineer, and quite a good one, he wouldn't build an AR15. You'd most likely see a slightly larger reciever/bolt, slightly larger magazine, amongst other changes

There is no two ways about it, all the WWSD thing is, is a lightweight build with some cult of personality stuff backing it up. There is no black magic that makes it more than a sum of it parts.

I see lots of AR15's, from KAC's, LaRue, DD, BCM, VLTOR, LMT, WWSD. They are all just the sums of their parts
 

Maverick44

Certified All-American Gun Nut
I am aware of what they were going for, needless to say it is a flawed premise, a quick browse through the AR15's history will show you several flaws in the design that came about after the design started gaining traction.

You cannot say "stoner would do this if he were alive" when all you have is a collection of parts that would not exist without the story of the AR15 happening as it did, warts and all
I do not feel you are actually understanding what they were wanting to do. It's not a "what should have Stoner done in the 50s" build. It's based on what he would probably do today with the parts and materials available. I feel you are drastically underestimating the amount of research that went into this. Neither Ian nor Karl are what you would call amateurs when it comes to historical research. They know about the history, they know about Stoner.

Eugene stoner was an engineer, and quite a good one, he wouldn't build an AR15. You'd most likely see a slightly larger reciever/bolt, slightly larger magazine, amongst other changes
And why wouldn't he build an AR-15? It's the most practical thing out there. Why would he make the bolt and receiver larger? That's just adding unnecessary weight. 5.56 isn't going anywhere no matter how much some might want it to, so why does it need the extra mass?

There is no two ways about it, all the WWSD thing is, is a lightweight build with some cult of personality stuff backing it up. There is no black magic that makes it more than a sum of it parts.
I fully disagree with all of that. The design is solid, and they have been proving it for 3 years now. It has nothing to do with some kind of cult of personality. It has to do with the gun itself.
 

popper

Well-Known
Apr 23, 2013
1,007
83
Actually, Stoner's design was a 308W deer rifle. Gov. got him to change it to a 223 Mil. rifle. And his initail design was somewhat crude. I don't really know who designed the AR15, Stoner had the DI patent though. Once the Gov. got involved they owned the patent. Guess he got the one dollar bill.
Oh, Germans didn't think the 9mm lugar was a weak round in (kinda) long rifles. But yes, our factory loadings are sub par. German anti-tank rifle barrel was >42" long.
9mm lugar 16" barrel 125gr FMJ muzzle fps 1600, 5gr Unique. Not too shabby.
 
Last edited:

zackmars

Well-Known
Nov 4, 2015
1,581
113
Texas
I do not feel you are actually understanding what they were wanting to do. It's not a "what should have Stoner done in the 50s" build. It's based on what he would probably do today with the parts and materials available. I feel you are drastically underestimating the amount of research that went into this. Neither Ian nor Karl are what you would call amateurs when it comes to historical research. They know about the history, they know about Stoner.



And why wouldn't he build an AR-15? It's the most practical thing out there. Why would he make the bolt and receiver larger? That's just adding unnecessary weight. 5.56 isn't going anywhere no matter how much some might want it to, so why does it need the extra mass?



I fully disagree with all of that. The design is solid, and they have been proving it for 3 years now. It has nothing to do with some kind of cult of personality. It has to do with the gun itself.

Well lets see... I am not an engineer, but i do know they tend to not be fans of obvious and simple to fix design flaws

And you don't see the nonsensical aspect of taking a person from one era, and asking him to build a version of a gun that he himself had little actual part in? A gun that would not exist if he weren't around in the 50's to develop its predecessors?

The AR15 is at its limit with the 5.56, which is why you see dramatic reductions in parts life in sub 20" barrels.

This is a problem that KAC tackled. Guess who worked for them? Eugene Stoner. If you really want a true WWSD gun, you'd best get an SR25

Its a build. It's nice because they are light and balanced, but there is zero connection with Stoner (other than to give it a sexier name) in a world where there are dozens of companies making very nice rifles.

And i think its pretty safe the whole cult of personality thing is true, the build has seen zero traction outside of their 2gacm stuff. No one would care about it if some random dude with no following tried selling the concept
 
Last edited:

zackmars

Well-Known
Nov 4, 2015
1,581
113
Texas
Actually, Stoner's design was a 308W deer rifle. Gov. got him to change it to a 223 Mil. rifle. And his initail design was somewhat crude. I don't really know who designed the AR15, Stoner had the DI patent though. Once the Gov. got involved they owned the patent. Guess he got the one dollar bill.
Stoner had a few designs, a .22lr survival rifle, the AR10, a shotgun, etc.

The task to shrink the gun to a SCHV round (initially .222rem) fell to a few people, notably this included Jim Sullivan, the guy behind the Mini 14.

The Stoner patent isn't DI, it features a gas piston, but the piston is part of the bolt, the expansion chamber of which is formed by the bore of the carrier and the tail of the bolt, the physical piston is actually the face of the bolt

True DI guns have a similar style of gas tube, but lack anything other than a blind hole that gasses flow into, like the AG42 ljungman, mas 49, etc
 

Maverick44

Certified All-American Gun Nut
Well lets see... I am not an engineer, but i do know they tend to not be fans of obvious and simple to fix design flaws

And you don't see the nonsensical aspect of taking a person from one era, and asking him to build a version of a gun that he himself had little actual part in? A gun that would not exist if he weren't around in the 50's to develop its predecessors?

The AR15 is at its limit with the 5.56, which is why you see dramatic reductions in parts life in sub 20" barrels.

This is a problem that KAC tackled. Guess who worked for them? Eugene Stoner. If you really want a true WWSD gun, you'd best get an SR25

Its a build. It's nice because they are light and balanced, but there is zero connection with Stoner (other than to give it a sexier name) in a world where there are dozens of companies making very nice rifles.
ARs will last many thousands of rounds before needing parts repair or replacement. Even when they do, it's stupidly simple to do. Outside of hard military or competition use, the overwhelming majority of ARs are never going to be shot enough to warrant those kinds of repairs. If it was that big of an issue, the US military would have done something about it by now, and multiple foreign militaries would not still be adopting the AR platform in one form or another as their standard issue service rifle.

Stoner developed the basic design and the concept for the gun. I consider that a pretty major part of the AR-15s design history. His concept was for a light, practical rifle made using modern materials. That concept is at the core of the WWSD project, so no. I don't consider it nonsensical. I do consider it to be nonsensical to be so rigid about all of this though. That project is just taking those original concepts and utilizing the parts and materials available today to build a very light and practical rifle.

As I suggested before, it's probably best to just agree to disagree. I don't really care to see this turn into a multi page argument over a concept.
 

Maverick44

Certified All-American Gun Nut
Actually, Stoner's design was a 308W deer rifle. Gov. got him to change it to a 223 Mil. rifle. And his initail design was somewhat crude. I don't really know who designed the AR15, Stoner had the DI patent though. Once the Gov. got involved they owned the patent. Guess he got the one dollar bill.
Oh, Germans didn't think the 9mm lugar was a weak round in (kinda) long rifles. But yes, our factory loadings are sub par. German anti-tank rifle barrel was >42" long.
9mm lugar 16" barrel 125gr FMJ muzzle fps 1600, 5gr Unique. Not too shabby.
As Zach said, it's not a true DI system. If you want to see a true DI system, look at the French Mas 49 or the Swedish Ljungman.

The first DI system was used in an experimental French rifle in 1900. The Rossignol ENT.

 

Sponsors

Greeneye Tactical
silencers
third coast
DK Firearms
Tyrant Designs
Ranier
Drockton Bullion
Drockton Bullion

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
97,128
Messages
2,180,926
Members
30,981
Latest member
Jeff Jones
Top Bottom