The AR-15/M16/M4 series rifle is undoubtedly the most popular rifle in the United State for all military, law enforcement and commercial markets.  It is the most versatile platform of a rifle on the face of the planet.  Another rifle has crept up into that popularity; one that was on the scrap heap of the U.S. Army for nearly 40 years.  That would be the one that started it all, the AR-10.  “Tomorrow’s Rifle Today” in the late 1950s has turned out to be today’s rifle today.  The rifle that Ordnance Corp would dismiss in the late 1950s would have its day in the late 1990s and in the new millennium would serve as the primary sniper rifle for the U.S. Special Operations Command as well as the U.S. Army, replacing M24 bolt action rifles.  But where did all this begin?

In 1953, George Sullivan gained interest from Richard Boutelle of Fairchild Engine and Aircraft for his idea of developing a small arms design firm.  Boutelle, a gun enthusiast himself, invested capital to start up this new company on 1 October 1954.  The money came from the research and development budget of Fairchild.  This company would have an impact on the history and direction of the modern battle rifle in the U.S. beyond Sullivan’s and Boutelle’s expectations.  ArmaLite Corporation was born.  The Fairchild winged Pegasus would have a circle and cross hairs superimposed as the symbol of the new corporation.  ArmaLite was envisioned to be a “think tank,” not a small arms manufacturer.  The new designs were to be made but manufactured by a dedicated manufacturing facility.

Much success in life is timing, being in the right place at the right time.  Even more so, having an individual that knows how to spot talent and grab it.  While working on a prototype rifle, George Sullivan was test firing his design at the Topanga Canyon Shooting Range outside of Los Angeles where he saw and met a young man who was doing the exact same thing.  That young man was Eugene Morrison Stoner.

Shown is a Portuguese soldier with is A.I. AR-10. The Portuguese Army was well satisfied with the performance of the AR-10 and would have procured more if A.I. would not have cut off production.

Stoner was born in Gasport, Indiana on November 11, 1922.  His family would later move to California.  In 1939, Stoner worked for Vega Aircraft and with the U.S. entering World War II Stoner would serve in the Marine Corps as an Ordnance Specialist.  At the time of his chance meeting with Sullivan, Stoner was making dental plates and in his spare time he would design advanced rifles.  Sullivan was very impressed with the rifle Stoner was testing, later known as the M5 (it evolved into the AR-3), and hired him as the Chief Design Engineer at ArmaLite.  The AR-3 was granted U.S. Patent Number 2,951,424.

Stoner was a genius; well ahead of his time particularly in the firearms industry at that time.  In fact, radical would be the proper word.  In a world of tradition that required steel and wood, young Stoner would take his experience in the state-of-the-art aircraft industry and apply that technology to firearms development.  Using aircraft grade aluminum and synthetic materials in place of the traditional wood and steel, Stoner would create the lightest battle rifle in the world.  But was the world, particularly the U.S. Ordnance Corps, ready for it?

Stoner’s new concept, the AR-10 would deviate from tradition.  First, the AR-10 would be completely inline in construction.  Meaning the barrel, bolt, bolt carrier and recoil spring and buffer were directly in line with the shooters shoulder.  This reduces traditional muzzle rise and felt recoil compared to the traditional M1/M14 rifles.  This also makes the rifle firing in fully automatic that much more controllable.  Due to no drop in the stock, the sights had to be raised so the shooter could see through them; hence the carrying handle (third prototype) was born which would become an icon for Stoner designed weapons.

The first prototype rifle had the needed raised front and rear sight and was chambered for the 7.62x63mm (30-06 Springfield) cartridge.  The cartridges were fed from a standard BAR magazine.  The stock was a tubular stock with a butt plate added to the rear.  This rifle used the same direct gas system used in Stoners AR-3 rifle which we will discuss in more detail.

Shown is the bolt carrier group of serial number 1004 after firing 409 rounds. This picture is to depict the carbon fouling on the bolt carrier group.

The second prototype added a telescope sight, which was raised up to allow the shooter’s eye to align.  Stoner added a more conventional stock to the rifle.  The pistol grip was made from the same material as the stock and hand guards.  There were no iron sights on this model.  This model also differed in that it was chambered for the 7.62x51mm cartridge that was soon to be adopted as the standard cartridge for the U.S. military.

The third prototype was far more close to the finalized AR-10.  Many new features were added and also the gas system was altered.  The first thing you notice is the carrying handle on the upper receiver containing the rear sight as well as the raised front sight that is attached to a muzzle compensator.  The bolt was designed after the Mel Johnson designed multi lug bolt.  There are seven lugs as well as the extractor.

This rifle used a unique new gas system.  Although previously used on the Swedish AG42B and the French MAS44 and MAS49/56, the new part of the system was to be a gas cut off once enough gas was used to operate the action.  This reduced recoil as well as increased the service life of the moving parts of the rifle.

When the rifle would fire, the bullet travelled down the barrel until it passed the gas port.  Gas was tapped from the barrel into the gas port and pressurized a long gas tube on the left side of the barrel.  The gas tube entered the side of the bolt carrier group.  There a piston chamber was created between the back of an internal chamber in the bolt carrier and bolt.  The gas created an internal pressure, pushing the bolt carrier to the rear.  The cam pin is rotated by the cam path in the receiver unlocking the bolt as it moves rearward.  This also acted as the cut off for the gas once the bolt begins its rearward travel venting off the unused gas.  As the bolt carrier moves rearward the fired cartridge case is extracted and ejected from the rifle once the mouth of the case clears the ejection port.  Now the spring loaded buffer returns the bolt carrier group forward with the bottom two lugs stripping off the top cartridge from the magazine, feeding and chambering the round.  Then final movement locks the bolt into the barrel extension.

Perhaps the most disastrous moment in the history of the AR-10 and if any moment defined the failure in the U.S. trial was the catastrophic barrel failure of serial number 1002. This was caused by Sullivan’s decision to use his aluminum barrels with a SS rifle sleeve. Stoner was adamantly opposed to this course of action and he was right.

This gas system eliminated several heavy parts of the traditional piston mechanism including a heavy operating rod.  Recoil was drastically eliminated due to not having the mass of an operating rod and piston slamming into the shooters shoulder.  This decrease in weight of the carrier group increased accuracy as well.  To further lessen recoil in this inline construction rifle, a muzzle compensator was added.  This made recoil with the larger 7.62x51mm caliber round smooth and easy.

The 4th prototype took on more of what we see today in the design of the AR-10/AR-15.  The rifle has two receivers, an upper and lower held on by a front pivot pin and a rear takedown pin.  The receivers were manufactured from state-of-the-art 7075 T6 aircraft aluminum forgings.  The stock and pistol grip were manufactured from foam-filled phenolic resin, which was lightweight, very strong and impervious to the elements, unlike traditional wood.  The rifle was fed from an aluminum 20-round magazine.  For strength, reinforcing ridges were pressed into the sides of the magazine giving it the “waffle” appearance.  These magazines were intended on being disposable in combat.  Due to the light weight of the magazine, soldiers would be able to carry more ammunition in preloaded magazines compared to previous rifles.

Another outstanding feature of the design and one that would certainly decrease weight was the design of a barrel extension for the multi-lug bolt to lock into.  Unlike previous designs, a large chunk of metal surrounds the chamber to contain the pressures of the chamber and afford a location for the bolt to lock into.  The AR-10 barrel extension screwed onto the rear of the chamber and focused the pressure into a small area.  U.S. Patent Number 3,027,672 was granted for the barrel extension on April 3, 1962.

The rifle was very user friendly.  With the shooting hand, the thumb actuated the selector lever and trigger finger actuated the trigger and magazine release button.  The left hand actuated the bolt catch and cocking handle located inside the carrying handle on top of the rifle.  The left hand also loaded and unloaded the magazine.

Close up view of the muzzle compensator found on the early Hollywood rifles. The end is held on by a snap ring that could be removed with the tip of a bayonet.

The rifle appeared futuristic and broke with traditions of what a military rifle was supposed to look and feel like.  Too new for some and those were often the influential people making the decisions on procurement.  Many new designs were tried to make use of new materials such as the use of aluminum barrels.  That came to no avail but shows the type of research and development going on at ArmaLite.

In late 1955, the U.S. Army got their first look at the new AR-10.  It was demonstrated to high ranking officials at the Infantry School at Fort Benning and Headquarters, Continental Army Command at Fort Monroe.  It was ArmaLite’s hope to delay the selection of the new rifle to replace the M1.  The T44 (M14) and the T48 (FAL) had been tested for quite some time and the decision was close.  Using the 4th prototype as the base, 50 rifles were handmade.  The barrels were a controversial issue within the walls of the ArmaLite shop.  Stoner had highly recommended and fought to have standard military grade steel barrels used.  Sullivan however over-ruled his recommendations and they used aluminum barrels swaged around 416 SS rifled liners.

But even at that time the organization thought more broadly; and the stated objectives included maintaining awareness of congressional and executive branch activities related to the small arms acquisition process, collecting and disseminating trade information of interest and value to the industry and the public, and handling trade inquiries.

Because the voices of larger industries overwhelmed the broader small arms industry’s voice (a single naval vessel or aircraft can cost more than an entire year’s small arms procurements) and no industry organization was focused on small arms, members knew that an organization like DSAAC was needed to promote its issues before governmental, economic and business groups.  Somebody needed to study pending legislative and acquisition matters to determine their direct and indirect implications to the industry and the public’s interest.

This required providing an effective means of promoting a helpful, supportive relationship between the industry and the public and to assist and advise government officials in accomplishing the requirements of the acquisition process.

The organization’s Board of Directors thus selected Major General Allen Youngman (RET) as the DSAAC’s Executive Director.  MG Youngman maintains a strong presence in the Nation’s Capitol.  DSAAC’s President, Mark Westrom of ArmaLite, Inc. describes MG Youngman as “without a doubt the sharpest General Officer I’ve had the pleasure to work with.”

The initial competition matter has evolved into current Army efforts to test a wide variety of small arms to be submitted for test and evaluation.

What nobody counted on was the organization being drawn into the now-famed UN Arms Trade Treaty process (the ATT), and a lesser-known UN project called the International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS).  The ATT first, then the ISACS were advancing without input from the Small Arms Industry.  While civil rights matters were the purview of the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and others, the more technical matters related to the ATT and ISACS processes appeared ill-understood and unaddressed.

DSAAC initially attended ATT conferences, sponsored by the World Forum on the Future of Shooting sports (WFSA) as early as 1997, with MG Youngman participating.  DSAAC is currently applying for Non Governmental Organization status similar to that of the NRA, WFSA, and IANSA.

Considerable rumor surrounds the ATT.  Among the rumors are that the Secretary of State has signed the ATT.  None of these rumors is true.  The ATT doesn’t exist even in draft form.  It is noteworthy however, that the process is heavily attended by organizations that are to say the least unsympathetic with the industry and firearms and their owners, and that some of these organizations are strongly funded and focused on loading the ATT down with their wishes.  Every ATT conference is heavily attended by Civil Society organizations that supply copious quantities of expensive documents, many in multiple languages.

UN leadership, including leadership of the ATT process, have stated clearly that the ATT is intended to address only the international transfer of military small arms only.  The current U.S. Administration’s position is similar to that of the previous administration: that the ATT is to relate to military armaments only, minus ammunition, and that the treaty must be based on consensus (unanimity) and equal treatment of all signatories.  These are high challenges for the UN.  At the same time, other nations are calling for privately held arms to be included, and for the treaty to go into effect with as little as 30 of the UN member states as signatories.

After a decade of preparatory meetings, a month long drafting phase is schedule to take place in July of 2012.  This process will surely be surrounded by a host of Civil Society organizations, generally unsympathetic to the American positions that will try to embellish the ATT with issues beyond military arms that will threaten its acceptance.  ATT will be in attendance focused on the military aspects of the ATT.

While attending what DSAAC believed was a 2009 Geneva conference on the ATT, DSAAC became aware of United Nations activity that is in some ways similar to the ATT: the ISACS.

ISACS is to consist of somewhat less than 30 modules covering a wide range of topics with topics ranging from industrial to civil rights in nature.  They include such matters as End Use Certificates, Border Controls, Collection (of weapons), and Gender and Small Arms and Light Weapons.  Some of these topics seem to step on the toes of the UN staff preparing the ATT.  Originally scheduled for completion in 2011, the ISACS is stretching into 2012.

Drafting of the modules is being performed by consultants hired by the UN, and reviewed by an “Expert’s Reference Group.”  ArmaLite’s Mark Westrom serves on the Expert’s Reference Group for DSAAC.

Like the UN and the WFSA before, DSAAC has applied for Non-Governmental Organization status at the UN.  This is a multi-year process and is not expected to be completed for several years.  Without such status, an organization normally has no voice at the UN.  DSAAC has been fortunate to have established itself on a practical basis and expects to continue its efforts.

Since initiation of the UN matters, some DSAAC members became concerned again of problems in competition: Army efforts to bring small arms production “in house” at the government arsenals.

Meetings with government officials reveals Army intent to maintain internal capacity to produce small arms components in case of emergency, and that about 10% internal production of DOD requirements are desired.  Industry concerns, of course, are that as overall DOD procurements turn downward the Army will yield to pressures to focus a greater portion of DOD contracts to the higher-cost arsenals.  The situation remains under observation.

Membership of the organization is highly focused, with primary (active) members of small arms companies focused on firearms, their accessories and components for arms of 40mm or smaller and designed or intended primarily for sale to or use by the Department of Defense or other government agencies.  Manufactures of firearm-related items (components, accessories, optics, kit, etc.), ammunition, and services form a second level of members: Associate Members.

The organization’s leadership consists of officers and board members from a variety of industry members both large and small, including FNMI, Colt’s Defense, Lewis Machine and Tool, and ArmaLite.

As conditions continue to evolve, DSAAC expects that its focus will continue to shift to meet the challenges facing the industry.