This is a continuation of the article about the Stoner 63 complex. The first part is published here, the second part is here.
The basis, or a single base for the modular design of Stoner's new weapon complex, was a stamped bolt box. These or those modules and barrels were attached to it, and as a result they received a carbine, a rifle or various machine gun configurations.
Reversible shutter box
It is worth noting that the photo at the beginning of the material shows a later model of the bolt box. It has holes in the area of the trunk of a smaller diameter. Earlier models had only 8 larger holes on the boxes.
The bolt box has 6 attachment points: 3 at the top and 3 at the bottom. Interchangeable modules and assemblies are attached to them using pins. For example, a pistol grip, buttstock, or other module.
Also, a gas tube is attached to the shutter box, which is non-removable. Depending on the position of the gas tube (top or bottom), one or another weapon configuration can be assembled. So, to assemble a carbine or an assault rifle, the bolt carrier should be turned to the "gas tube from above" position. And mount a rifle barrel under it. And to assemble the machine gun, the bolt box must be turned over to the "gas tube from below" position. And mount a heavy machine-gun barrel above it.
The bolt assembly is universal and is used in all modifications. The pistol grip with trigger was used in all modifications, with the exception of the "tank / aircraft" machine gun (Fixed Machine Gun). Together with the bolt box, they made up the Basic Component Group.
In order to assemble, for example, an assault rifle, the following parts were needed:
- rifle barrel (Rifle Barrel Assembly);
- forend (Forestock Assembly);
- module with a rifle sight (Rear Sight Assembly);
- butt (Butt Stock);
- Magazine Adapter;
- detachable magazine for 30 rounds.
In order to assemble a magazine-fed light machine gun (LMG), slightly different parts were required. Pay attention to the kit, which is shown in the photo below.
An interesting fact.
A 30-round box magazine for the latest 5.56 × 45mm rounds was developed specifically for the Stoner 63 system. In official documents of those years, he was referred to as "STONER 30-round detachable magazine". Due to its capacity, this magazine turned out to be more successful than the 20-round magazine, which was originally equipped with the first production M16 rifles. And when in February 1967 the improved M16A1 rifles began to enter the troops, they were already equipped with magazines for 30 rounds from the Stoner system. Over time, thanks to the widespread distribution of rifles of the M16 family, the 30-cartridge magazines from the Stoner system began to be called "Standard magazines from the M16 rifle."
Thus, magazines for 30 rounds and M27 cartridge belts, developed for the Stoner 63 system, have been used by the military (and not only) for almost half of the world for half a century.
The lineup
In total, 6 types of interchangeable barrels and modules were developed, which were enough to assemble 6 configurations. At the exit, they received the following types of small arms:
- carbine;
- assault rifle;
- magazine-fed light machine gun (for convenience - Bren);
- Light Machine Gun Belt-Fed;
- heavy machine gun with belt feed (Medium Machine Gun);
- aircraft machine gun (Fixed Machine Gun).
As you can see, the weapon of the Stoner 63 system of the first series was equipped with wooden fittings. But over time, the forend and stock were made of polycarbonate. The stocks were made easily removable and detached with one click. If necessary, it was possible to use a stock from a different configuration or not use it at all. For example, if circumstances dictated or so it was convenient.
The shutter of the original design
Another feature of the Stoner system is the barrel locking unit, namely the bolt group of a special design. Like the bolt box, the bolt also has the ability to operate in 2 positions. That is, the shutter can also be called a "changeling". In one position it operates in the Free Shutter mode, and in the second (inverted position) it operates in the Butterfly Shutter mode. That is, the barrel is locked by turning the bolt. In our time, such a node would be called a hybrid.
A triangular protrusion on the shutter called "Shark fin" and a cutout on its back are responsible for changing modes. So, in the "Butterfly" mode during movement, the fin interacts with the parts of the trigger and helps to lock the barrel. And in the inverted position, the fin does not participate in the operation of the automation. But a cutout is involved, which fixes the shutter in the rear position, and the automation works in the "Free Shutter" mode.
Of course, not only the fin or the roller on the back of the bolt group are involved in this or that mode. The work involves a disconnector, grooves and guides, as well as other figures both on the bolt group and in the trigger. Thanks to them, the automation parts move "along the right channel", and we get this or that mode.
The work of automation is shown in detail in the video at the end of the article.
In the “carbine” * and “assault rifle” versions, the barrel is locked by turning the bolt, as on the AR-15 / M16 (closed bolt). Thus, a high accuracy of fire is achieved. The Light Machine Gun, Medium Machine Gun and Fixed Machine Gun variants fire from an open bolt. The manufacturer's brochure indicates that an open breechblock promotes continuous fire and also increases its resistance (greater sustained fire).
* An interesting detail.
Thanks to the unified trigger in the "carbine" version, it is possible to fire both single shots and bursts. By and large, the carbine differed from an assault rifle with a shorter barrel and a folding stock. The folding stock could be either wooden / polymer or wire.
Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons believes the Stoner 63 is in many ways a natural evolution of the AR-15 rifle, with an emphasis on modularity. The author of this article believes that the Stoner 63 also used the solutions that were used on the AR-18 ("Widowmaker").
The military showed great interest in the new complex, but they demanded testing in real combat conditions. Since the Vietnam War was in full swing, it didn't take long to choose a region. For a number of reasons, not 6-in-1 self-assembly kits were sent to Vietnam, but several modifications assembled at the manufacturing plant. An already updated system with the designation Stoner 63A was sent to the war.
Stoner: early days in battle
This is the title of a story that was published by J. W. Gibbs, a retired US Marine Corps Lt. Col. in the Small Arms Review. I do not vouch for the absolute accuracy of the translation, but I hope that the meaning of the story has not been distorted. Further - the narration on behalf of Lieutenant Colonel Gibbs.
* * *
In the winter of 1967, Lima Company / Company L, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, fought against Viet Cong units south of Da Nang. At that time, there was an airbase that was used by the South Vietnamese and American Air Forces.
The main tasks of the "Lima" company were to survive and destroy the enemy. However, at the end of February, the fighters were given another task: to test the experimental Stoner 63A system in real combat conditions. As a result of the tests, the command planned to decide on the suitability of this weapon complex for the US armed forces.
At that time, the fighters were armed with reliable M14 rifles, M60 machine guns and M1911A1 pistols. We were a combat unit that fought in the tropics. Despite the high humidity, mud, sand and other factors, our weapons continued to work flawlessly. Therefore, these models have become our "gold standard" when compared with new weapons.
The Marines exchanged their pistols chambered for.45 ACP as well as 7.62mm rifles and machine guns for new, previously untested carbines, rifles and machine guns chambered for the new 5, 56 cartridge. henceforth always react to strikes of strikers.
The soldiers unquestioningly began to study the products and practice firing. In a word, they were again preparing for a counter-guerrilla war, but with the weapons of the Stoner system. No one suspected that the Stoners and the new type of smaller caliber ammunition would work differently than the reliable weapons we were previously armed with. I know these facts because at that time I was in command of a company.
We had to test the weapons of the Stoner system in 5 modifications: a carbine, an assault rifle, two types of light machine guns (magazine-fed and belt-fed), as well as heavy machine guns. Officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) received carbines. The rifles were handed over to most of the Marines who were previously armed with M14 rifles. The exception was the Marines, who were given magazine-fed light machine guns. In total, about 180 soldiers and officers received new types of weapons. For testing in combat conditions, 60 days were released.
Thus, the Marines had to conduct a 60-day "trial" of five members of the Stoner family.
We needed to quickly learn the features of the new weapon: disassembly, assembly, maintenance and use. Then we had to "feel" the capabilities of this weapon, gain confidence in its reliability.
We were immediately impressed by the weapons of the Stoner system. All samples were radically different both in their appearance and in their design from anything we have ever seen. It looked solid and inspired confidence.
At first the lack of wooden fittings attracted attention. Then - perforated metal, the presence of plastic and a pistol grip. The weapon was light and balanced. We got the feeling that it was delivered to us from the future.
A group of instructors was brought in from the US Navy Base Quantico, Virginia. They conducted an 18-hour training course with the soldiers in the harsh conditions of the base, and after that, the commanders of the detachments spent 6 hours of additional classes with their subordinates. All this time, each Marine has been firing a different type of weapon. The number of allocated cartridges was calculated based on the type of weapon and the time required to acquire shooting skills from one or another sample.
We received a sufficient, but still limited supply of new at that time 5, 56-mm ammunition. Therefore, for practice shooting, 250 rounds were allocated for each carbine, 270 for a rifle, and 1000 for machine guns. Our training was satisfactory. We were mentally and physically ready to fight our Stoners. On February 28, 1967, the Lima Company, now armed with a Stoner 63A, left the battalion and resumed combat patrols.
The enemy quickly began to recognize us because of the specific sound made by our new weapon. For miles around, we were the only combat unit that used 5.56mm ammunition.
Stores that saved a soldier's life
On March 3, 2nd Squad, 2nd Platoon, led by Corporal Bill Pio, went on a day patrol. Lance Corporal Dave Mains was the radio operator. Suddenly, Lance Corporal Kevin Diamond found several Vietcong under a tree at 12 o'clock. The party halted, and Pio and Maines crept cautiously to Diamond's position. Corporal Pio ordered to surround the enemy, but as soon as the fighters began to carry out the order, the Viet Cong noticed them and opened fire on the Marines. Both Pio and Diamond were seriously injured. After their evacuation, someone noticed that Maines' radio operator's pouch was smashed. It turned out that enemy bullets hit one of his flasks and 2 stores. Steel magazines, loaded with cartridges and a flask filled with water, served as a bulletproof vest. He kept these items as a talisman, and after the end of the service he took bullet-riddled shops and a canteen home to the United States.
Wischmeyer's Girdle
During testing of new weapons, we had the opportunity not only to make a list of comments to the tested samples, but also to offer all sorts of upgrades. A useful improvement was suggested by 2nd Platoon Commander Lt. William Wischmeyer.
Prior to testing, officers and sergeants were armed with pistols for self-defense. One of the main reasons for equipping commanders with short barrels is not to let them get too carried away with shooting, and to give them the opportunity to concentrate on managing the fighters. After all, officers and junior commanders often read cards, control artillery fire, negotiate by radio. That is, their hands are often busy. And during the tests, the officers were armed with carbines. How to be?
Second Lieutenant Wischmeyer quickly understood the problem and set about solving it. He took several straps from a vest, a strap from a blanket (roll), and a standard strap from a carabiner and connected them all in a special way. The result is a homemade tactical belt. First Lieutenant Gran Moulder called it "Wischmeyer sling". However, the jokes did not last long, as the belt was quickly appreciated. Over time, it became widespread and became known as the "jungle sling" (jungle sling).
In the jungle, Wishmeyer's belt allowed commanders to keep their hands free, and, if necessary, fire single shots or even bursts. The Stoner system carbines were perfectly balanced and I also fitted my weapon with a jungle strap. Thanks to the ability to adjust the length of the strap, my carabiner was located at waist level and provided free hand. To fire, I quickly lowered my right hand to the grip, pushed the weapon forward, and grabbed the forend with my left hand. The bullets flew right into the target, as if they were flying out of my finger. That was great! The belt was a vital necessity.
We continued to use the "jungle strap" even after Lieutenant Wischmeyer (the author of the rationalization proposal) was wounded on March 8 and was evacuated. Moreover, we used the tactical belt throughout the entire time while testing the new weapon. So Lieutenant Wischmeyer's 9-day contribution to the modernization of the Stoner carbine was significant.
Fault reports
After 12 days of patrolling, we returned to the location of the battalion. After resting and replenishing supplies, we were preparing for the next exit. Upon arrival at the base, we were required to fill out 4 reports, among which was the "Failure Report". I didn't expect to fill it up too often. But it turned out differently.
The Marines reported 33 malfunctions that were discovered during the first 12 days of using Stoner weapons, all 5 modifications. The most common faults were when feeding cartridges and ejecting spent cartridges (sticking out). The ammunition itself also caused criticism. The capsules were chipped, but no shots were fired. I did not know the reasons for the malfunctions, but I realized that my soldiers could not fight. Despite our reports of malfunctions, the attitude of the command towards Stoner products continued to be favorable. Soon we went out on patrol again.
On March 15, the commander of the 1st platoon, Lieutenant Andres Vaart, sent a group (4 fighters) at sunset to carry out a combat mission. The fighters were armed with two rifles and two magazine-fed light machine guns (LMG) of the Stoner system, as well as one M79 grenade launcher (single-shot, 40-mm). On the way, the detachment ran into an enemy patrol. A skirmish ensued. Of the 4 barrels of the Stoner system, only 1 rifle worked without failures, while the other 3 constantly had problems. With one serviceable rifle, a grenade launcher and hand grenades, the Marines managed to fight off a well-armed Viet Cong squad, whose weapons were working properly. At the same time, the camp of the patrol company was attacked. And while repelling the attack on the camp, the weapons of the soldiers of the patrol company showed a large number of malfunctions.
The Lima Marines were clearly disappointed with weapons they could not rely on.
In this situation, instead of looking for the enemy, we were forced to concentrate on making our weapons work. That night I canceled my patrol and gathered all 3 platoons. Gunnery Sergeant Bill McClain, with the help of several fighters, cleared the area for an impromptu shooting range. Alternating, we fired all night, checking each "barrel" and fixing faults. And if necessary (and if possible), we eliminated the malfunction. However, all our attempts to solve the problem with the reliability of weapons in the field were in vain. The same faults that were discovered in the first 12 days were again the most frequent. I had to admit that our new type of weapon did not have the most important property: reliability.
But that was our weapon, and we had to make it work. We had to solve the problem ourselves. Moreover, we have already studied the system and knew much more about its defects than anyone else.
Empirically, we determined that the main causes of malfunctions were: sand, grease, moisture and the quality of the ammunition. The sand in those parts was inevitable, and we desperately needed quality cartridges. The task that we had to solve was to determine: how exactly sand, moisture and grease affect the performance of the weapon, and how to fix it. For two days we stayed at the base and methodically conducted tests.
The area of our deployment was located on a plain, on the coast of the South China Sea. The sand in that area was unusually fine. The fact is that we often moved in landing vehicles (LVT), which, with their tracks, ground the sand into a fine, crumbly powder. During the ride, sand dust rose above the cars on which we moved and settled on everything, without exception. We instantly found ourselves completely covered with white dust, which penetrated at every pore. It also penetrated all the cracks, including the cracks in our weapons. For dust protection, we wrapped our weapons in our army towels (green).
Tight fit of parts
Three weeks earlier (during the training course), we noticed that all five modifications had moving parts too tightly fitted to each other. We have subjected this fact to a thorough study. The decision was made: shoot, shoot, and shoot again, so that the details "get used to". Each soldier fired more than one hundred cartridges from his weapon under the close attention of platoon sergeants and squad leaders. Gunnery Sergeant and First Sergeant (Petty Officer) George Bean provided active assistance. All malfunctions that were discovered during the shooting were documented, then the fighter cleaned his weapon, went to the firing position, and continued "zeroing in".
It was a long and painstaking, but necessary process. Over time, we began to notice progress: weapons began to malfunction less often. However, troubleshooting weapons alone was not enough. It was necessary to instill confidence in each Marine, to raise his morale.
We searched for a long time, and finally got a batch of better quality ammunition. On March 18 and 19, 5th Platoon, under the command of Lieutenant Michael Kelly, conducted exercises while assessing troubleshooting progress. But before, each soldier carefully cleaned and oiled his weapon (carbine, rifle or machine gun) in accordance with the features that he discovered as a result of fire tests.
The Marines then crawled across the sand to the firing position, each firing 100 rounds. After the firing, the soldiers in the landing vehicles drove 3 miles through the sands, returned covered with fine sand dust, landed, and again went to the firing line. There, each soldier shot another 100 rounds. And when another malfunction occurred, the marine was obliged to fix it himself, applying only his own knowledge gained during the operation.
After receiving a new batch of cartridges, shooting problems became much less. I was confident that we designed the moving parts, and the fighters were convinced that their weapons could work properly. And in the event of malfunctions, each Marine, knowing the individual characteristics of his weapons, will quickly eliminate them. I believed in my fighters. We resumed combat patrols that night.
In the next 10 days, weapons of all configurations proved to be much better. We patrolled, set up several successful ambushes, and took two Viet Cong prisoners as a result. In general, the soldiers of the "Lima" company have resumed their main task. But most importantly, the fears of the Marines regarding the reliability of the Stoner 63 weapon system have been significantly reduced.
On April 3, I reported to the command that the weapon "works very well." In the report, I asked to extend the trial period from 60 to 90 days. My request was granted.
During the 90-day period, not only weapons of the 63A family were tested, but also the marines themselves. In addition to our daily combat patrols, from February 28 to May 31, 1967, our company participated in 4 major combat operations. In the first weeks, we judged the Stoners as weapons of dubious reliability. But over time, we made him work, appreciated him, and became attached to him. It has become not just a test weapon, but OUR weapon. Henceforth, we no longer doubted its reliability.
By the end of the 1st month, we already knew that the problems we encountered earlier were not the fault of the designer. During the daily battles, the Marines of the Lima Company began to be respected, admired and willing to go into battle with the Stoner 63 in their hands. This applied to all of its configurations.
At the end of May 1967, our company was rearmed again. This time we were given M16A1 rifles, which have already earned a terrible reputation. Of course, all of our experience with the Stoner 63A system was immediately applied to the unreliable M16. I believe that over time the Stoner has become a worthy replacement for the M14, and the M16 has never been able to reach the level of the Stoner.
Sincerely -
Lt. Col. J. Gibbs, United States Marine Corps.
* * *
Below are some interesting comments from people who claim to be familiar with the Stoner 63 system firsthand. Sorry for any possible inaccuracies in free translation from English.
Jim PTK
July 13, 2012 at 6:57 am
I worked with Eugene Stoner at Cadillac Gage while they were developing the Stoner 63 system. In addition to the weapon itself, there was work on all sorts of accessories. One of them, in the development of which I took part, was a backpack (backpack) for storing ammunition belts for aircraft machine guns (Fixed Machine Gun). They were supposed to be installed on helicopters. Each tape contained 300 rounds and was wound in a spiral in a special pocket. The backpack was designed in such a way that in the event of a helicopter accident, the crew could remove the machine gun from the car and carry as much ammunition as possible in the backpacks.
The gunsmiths conducted many interesting tests. Once they locked the Stoner system in a vise to capture the shots. The barrel was parallel to the floor and aimed at a thick armor plate. It was installed at such an angle that the bullet would bounce off it downward, where the sand bucket (bullet trap) lay. When filming was completed, we found that each bullet after ricochet went through the sand and pierced the bottom of the bucket. All the bullets were drowned in the concrete floor under the bucket.
Dave berutich
September 10, 2016 at 11:26 am
I was fortunate enough to fight Stoner 63. I served in Vietnam, in the "Lima" company. It was the best weapon I have ever used. Stoner saved my butt in a lot of dangerous situations.
When we were ambushed, we could respond with a flurry of fire. The fact is that the Stoner was originally equipped with a magazine for 30 rounds, while the M16 had a magazine for only 20. The magazine of increased capacity proved to be effective, especially when we needed to suppress enemy fire. Many of us made homemade doubles of magazines (for 60 rounds), which allowed us to fire almost continuously. This is exactly what was needed when organizing ambushes.
I believe the Stoner 63 was not adopted by the USMC more for politics than for any other reason. And the difficulty in servicing it was just an excuse, an excuse.
L Co / 3rd Bn / 1st Marine Division Vietnam 1966-1967.
MAGA Man
September 10, 2016 at 11:26 am
Dave Berutich is absolutely right about the Stoner 63 complex, and especially when it comes to politics. The adoption of the AR-15 / M16 family of rifles was a mistake. Perhaps politics prevailed again. The M14 was an excellent rifle, however, in the dense terrain of Southeast Asia, it proved to be of little use due to its length. And this is its main drawback. Plus the M14 is also a marksman rifle! And if we used the M14 (or its derivatives) as a regular infantry battle rifle, and the Stoner 63 as an LMG or SAW, who knows how things would have turned out there, in Vietnam …
