http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=138194

Anyone have $68000 they can loan me?  I swear I'll pay you back. . .

DO.

WANT.

I have always wished that someone would reproduce the Stoner 63...

Wow, that is very cool!  If I had that much money to spend on a weapon I think it would be an M60 with a bunch of ammo.  

DROOL!

You could get four M60s and $5k of ammo for that. The Seller has had it for a while, IIRC when he first started posting it he was asking $39k and has only gone up in price since, definitely not a motivated seller.

They did...a Robinson Armament M96 but they stopped making them and they are fairly rair to see. Perhaps you knew that though with your little

Not a very good copy though. Robinson changed the design quite a bit. Cut a few corners here and there, etc. I also recall hearing some stink about how the line was dropped and half of the promised accessories never came about and all sorts of unsavory comments. Everyone seems to agree that its a decent rifle though.

It's a real shame no one wants to make one. Thanks to the latest Call of Duty it seems to have become pretty popular these days.

Actually, come to think of it, I read on another forum that Knight's (who pretty much own everything pertaining to the original design) were looking to make repros but, they needed someone to help develop the semi-auto version. The guy posting said he had been offered the job but couldn't afford to take it.

well that's an interesting piece of history, but not worth 2 years of retirement..I'd die long before I could hold it....I'd rather eat and play with my Grandkids.

Here's a pretty cool copy of a Stoner 63.

http://shop.ehobbyasia.com/gandp-u-s-navy-mk23-mg-stoner-63.html



......but it's an airsoft!  

Cool though.  Wouldn't you agree?

Machine gun dealer at local funshow has one and his isn't that expensive.  I'd rather have the M-60 an ammo also.

The Robinson Armament M96 is not an accurate replica of the Stoner 63

68.5K for a fucking machine gun? It better blow my balls and lick my ass daily for that price and it's still outrageously priced.

[/quote]
The Robinson Armament M96 is not an accurate replica of the Stoner 63

[/quote]

You didn't specify accurate replica...the Robinson is as close as we will come I think.

Well, this is what I was actually thinking before I posted my reply above.  

and buy you breakfast every morning & twice on Sunday.

The Marines tested them in '65 and loved them. I hate to sound like a traitor, but I think personally the Stoner 63 was a better weapon and would have made a better service rifle than the M16 just as the Johnson Automatic may have been better than the Garand. I know it's hard to believe someone in our government may have been paid off, but personally I think that's what happened in both cases. I have pic of a SEAL carrying a belt -fed stoner on my wall. I'm guessing he really doesn't want to sell it, but he has it up for sale per his wife. Think about it.

ETA: IIRC, Caddillac - Gage built some. I'll take one with Corinthian leather...

Nope.  Not even close.  It was so deviated from the Stoner that I got
rid of it.  The op rod system for the M96 really stunk.

 

The Stoner system had it's problems, not unlike another Gene Stoner designed weapons system of the same time period.  The Stoner 63 just wasn't given the same "teething period".  Did it have potential?  Absolutely.  Did it get a fair accounting by the Infantry Board?  Absolutely not.  Did the Marines want it?  Absolutely.  Did they stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting a weapons system that the Army did not want?  Absolutely not. The Stoner was so far ahead of it's time (Modular Weapons System) that it sealed it's fate.

There you have it in a nutshell.  The Stoner 63 never went through the evolution that the M16 did and was thus judged to be unreliable by the US Army.  The SEAL's on the other hand LOVED THEM and could not procure enough to satisfy their need.  However, seals are a different breed than Snuffy the Dogface.  Seals know how and more importantly, have the time and training to properly maintain their tools.  Grunts on the ground (imho) would not have been well served by the Stoner.  It was a specialized weapon for specialized troops.

As to the Stoner on Buddy's board, the price is not outrageous.  I once read (in the internet so it must be true) that there are fewer than 100 original Stoner rifles on the registry.  I think I did read somewhere that Reed Knight (maybe) had registered a bunch of receivers just before May 1986.  anyway, It's simple supply and demand.  The seller has the supply so he can demand whatever he wants.  I also remember back in the late 80's or 1990 that there was a Stoner SYSTEM (several barrels, stocks, and FEED MECHANISMS) in The Gun List for 75k.  Perhaps the price has not gone up that much after all.

I crave a Stoner.  Having shot one as a kid (a PD gun in small town New Jersey of all places)  I want one so bad I can taste it.   A 50 round belt went WAY too fast but as I recall, all but the last 2 rounds hit the B27 target.  From the bipod, it was heavan.


ka.

Damnit, I think I might have to snag that Airsoft Stoner and stick a 10/22 in it.  I'll never get my hands on a real one.  Oh, tried the Robinson M96 as well.  If they would have produced ALL the accessories (the belt feed comes to mind)  it would have been worth it.  As a mag fed rifle, I'll stick with my M4gery.

ka

The Stoner 63 was also late to the game.  The US Army wasn't going to start investigating another new individual system after it had just begun issuing one on a limited basis.


The Marines were also late to the game.  By the time the US Marines conducted their field test in 1967, the US Army had vastly expanded their issue of the M16 and the Marines had adopted it as well.  The same factors came into play.  The USMC had just adopted a new weapon system, and it would have been a huge sunk cost to accept if they switched over to yet another one.


Seeing as the AR-10 was essentially "modular" as well (could be converted to a belt fed weapon even), and that Colt had marked the CAR-15 as a broad family of weapons (also including a belt-fed version), it seems like Stoner's two previous designs beat the Stoner 63 in this category.  In fact, to make the receiver a single unit common to all the weapons, Stoner had to vastly increase the weight of the weapon (which ironically is similar to the weight of the M16A2), while at the same time creating far more gaps for things to get into.  In the Vietnam environment, the most important combat environment in military planners' minds at the time, the Stoner was unreliable, just like the M16/A1 was.  Perhaps even more so.  And the idea of going through that rigmarole all over again could not have been attractive.  The weapon design was also decidedly more complicated.  

These things outweighed any pros, especially when its clear that at the time the US military as a whole was not intent on issuing belt-fed automatic weapons to its automatic riflemen.  When the Marines conducted their test, they issued the Bren configuration to their automatic rifleman, and the belt-fed variants to the weapons platoon, in lieu of the M60.  This was similar to an attempt by the US Army to replace company level M60s with M249s in the 1980s, which met with similar hostility.  The SEALs loved theirs in no small part because of their mission profile.  That they were a decidedly smaller entity than the US Army or the USMC, received more training, and could had people fiddle with their weapons constantly couldn't have hurt.  Just look at how long they held on to their lightweight M60s, another weapon declared by the big services to be entirely unreliable.

The Marines were field testing the Stoner at the same time the XM16E1 was being evaluated in '65 from everything I've read.

According to D.E. Watter's 5.56mm Timeline, the field test which I mentioned in Vietnam occurred between February and March 1967.  The USMC had begun testing the system in 1964, and complained that they felt the Army was obstructing them, but this goes back to the first point about the Stoner 63 being late to the US Army party.  The US Army (as well as the USAF) had been messing around with them since 1963.  The fact of the matter is that the US Army was testing the Stoner 63 after it had already declared the XM16E1 limited standard.  By the time the SAWS tests come around, there wasn't a clear argument for any one of the systems (the lists of issues with all the types tested in the SAWS reports are lengthy).  It is easy to see how the US Army decision was made to stick with the XM16E1.  

The USMC persisted with the Stoner 63, despite generally coming to the same conclusion.  By April 1967, the USMC had already declared the "Bren" configuration redundant, meaning that the only configurations being fielded in the test unit, were the rifle, LMG, and MMG ones.  In that same month, the USMC had already issued M16A1s to all of its maneuver and reconnaissance units in Vietnam.  Its easy to see how the project was finally killed after the decision boiled down to whether or not they were going to stick with the M16A1 they had just issued, or issue another 5.56mm rifle immediately after doing so.  It probably didn't help that when comparing them as rifles, it was a matter of choosing between one that was a little over 6 pounds and one that was closer to 8 pounds, neither of which had a 100% clean reliability record.  I highly doubt that with all the other testing of 5.56mm weapons as suitable replacements for the M60 that the Stoner 63 would have been considered any more seriously in this role as well.  In the end the modularity of the Stoner 63 wasn't a factor.  It was a matter of deciding between two different rifles, and there weren't any clear advantages over the M16A1 to justify the costs.

Ya know....if the Stoner  took STANAG M16 mags.....the Bren gun version would be VERY viable with those new 60 round mags.



Use a 30 as a cheater and then top it off with 60s.

My boss bought a pre may dealer sample 63A for $35,000 two years ago.  Neat gun.

I was referring to the earlier testing. The M16A1was standardized in '67 IIRC, which coincides with the testing cycle you mention. Interesting. As far as reliability goes, the SEAL teams sure liked them in the short Mod O belt fed version. I mean, who wouldn't? As a SAW the Stoner had several advantages over the Colt 606. I personally think the 63A is a better weapon, as much as I've come to respect and like the Armalite design. I have been drooling over the M96 for some time - I will likely still buy one when I get the money, despite the comments here. I know the safety is different - the original Stoner had a Garand-style safety. The one issue I have with Robinson is I'd be a little afraid of not being able to get replacement parts. The original 63A and the Johnson Automatic Rifle are my two favorite small arms. I can think of worse things to blow $70K on than an original Stoner, but I don't think I could ever justify it, even if I were wealthy. I mean, you could have a really decent vintage Vette for that, plus an M16A1 for the trunk.

A Shrike on a registered lower would be my choice these days if money were no object. (It is though...)

My guess is for those who can afford, they don't care much about the price. It's an interesting weapon and a peice of history that few have.

Well I'd sure rather have a Stoner than a Lexus with custom wheels and 24K gold-plated trim...

I had one of the first 200 Robarm M96 Expeditionary Rifles, pre-ordered......bought into the "belt feed kit is coming soon" mantra.



Thanks to some extra parts plus some demil stuff from Jerry Tarble, I installed the take-down window in the M96 Stock, plus used Brownells Accu-Glass and metal to form the top and bottom butt swivels.    Another source resulted in a nice stainless Mk23 Gas Cylinder, which I was going to weld in place of the different M96 tube.   Original adjustable bipod, even installed a Stoner selector lever onto the M96 trigger housing..looked cool, worked great.



I even had a demil feed cover I was in the process of rebuilding, thought I was going to beat both Robarm and Shrike.



Thanks to 9/11 and a broken relationship, I wound up selling it off.

Yeah, Robinson was so close...so close.

Perhaps someone else will jump on the Stoner bandwagon.  I don't know if CG ever actually made it, but I've got some sales liturature from 66 where they advertised the Stoner 66...a civilian legal semi auto version that will accept all of the Stoner 63 conversion parts.

That'd be a rare jewl indeed.

ka

Very small family connection

My stepfather's dad worked at Cadillac Gage as a machinist. Born in 1901 in Germany, Grandpa Stegmann was an old world, quiet, proud of his work, perfectionist type of guy. I sure wish I paid attention to guns back in the day so I could have asked him about the things that he worked on. He passed away in 1985.
There are a couple stories that my stepfather used to repeat every now and then.
One time when my stepfather  went to visit his dad at work, he was treated to a film (sales pitch type film) showing the capabilities of the Stoner 63. The thing that stood out the most to my dad was a belt-fed sequence where a rifleman shot a cinder block wall creating a hole and then walked through the hole.
Also, when the Remington xp100 pistol came out, my stepfather and his buddy both bought one. Being young and wanting more power, the two decided to have there pistols rechambered to .223. My dad's friend was first and Eugene Stoner himself did the rechambering. After just one shot from his friend's gun with a huge fireball from the muzzle, my dad decided to keep his xp100 factory.
Costa Mesa was a much smaller friendlier place back then.

Too sexy..!!!!

The damn gun,  of course...

So jealous.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mongo63a#p/u/10/vt3VkQG-Xps

Me too.  Either that or an MG-42...

ETA: or a Browning M2...

Or a M1917 water cooled......

I saw a video of, I think it was Reed Knight, holding one high over his head, and shooting it one handed.

True.

So when are are going to see Nodak made NDS 63's?

IN FOR A NDS STONER 63

ka

Oh, yeaahh!
Wait. First I need to find a cheap 63A parts kit!

Shoot.  I may have detected a flaw in this plan...  

...but it is still damn sexy!

Wow. An underfolder on an M96! Me like.

It was the Stoner 64.



There was one problem......the Stoner, being so modular and all.....guess how hard it was to toss 63 components onto a 64 receiver????





LOL...not hard at all......the ATF nixed it and the changes necessary to make it NFA compliant created more expense than the company wished to deal with.



DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN!!!!



 

Had to add some M96 flair, here...just for fun:







Ya know, by the time they got to the final version of the M96...it was a heck of a gun....it needed just a few more little tweaks.....but it was one of the smoothest, TOUGHEST guns I have ever owned.



I could NOT get over the AR-70 op rod system.



If Robinson would have used a more conventional, fixed, Stoner type op rod with an internal spring and a provision for a central cocking know.....I would never have let it go.  Well, that an they should have used the M14 style safety.  The thumb safety on the M96 cannot be operated to the off position from the shoulder.  Don't know WHAT the hell they were thinking as far as that goes.

Not a 63

Yeah I know. It's Knight's "Stoner LMG". Leaves one to wonder if the original is just as controllable.

Between the full length op rod, tungsten buffer, and the shock absorbers in the bolt... gotta' wonder.

Is that factory or custom?  Never seen an underfolder.

Anybody got one set up in the "Bren Config"?  Always thought that'd be nice to have...even if only in semi

ka

The things you learn on ARFCOM

anybody know what a Stoner rifle cost in say 1969/70?